
Book ~P^^^ 



HS& 



BAPTISM: 



ITS 



NATURE, OBLIGATION, MODE, SUBJECTS, 
AND BENEFITS. 



BY 



L. ROSSER, A.M. 

OF THE VIRGINIA ANNUAL CONFERENCE. 



SirCOND EDITION. 



RICHMOND, VA: 

PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR. 

1854. 






Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1853, by 

L. ROSSER, 

in the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. 



STEREOTYPED BY L. JOHNSON AND CO. 
PHILADELPHIA. 



In Exchange 
vDuke University 

.VlAY 7 - 1934 



PREFACE. 



The fruitful causes of division in the Christian 
Church originate in the disposition of weak and selfish 
man to increase or lessen, modify or do away, the 
conditions and requisitions of salvation, positively 
enjoined or plainly implied in the Bible. Out of the 
old Jewish vail, rent from top to bottom by Christ 
himself, some fragment is often reserved, and devoted 
to sectarian purposes. The middle wall of partition, 
long since broken down, is rebuilt upon the very 
authority by which it was overthrown, and to secure 
the very ends which its prostration was designed to 
prevent. The pure fire of heavenly love, kindled by 
Christ to burn for ever on the altar " of his sanctuary, 
struggles amid the impure vapours of religious con- 
tention, till often it finally expires, and in its place 
flashes up the sickly light of sectarian fervor — a 
strange fire, destructive alike to the church and the 
world — the cause of grief and reproach to the one, 
and of contempt and triumph to the other. In vain 
may the church weep over her fallen altars, broken 
harps, rent robes — her failures, misfortunes, and fre- 
quent defeats — her want of spiritual influence — her 
sad declensions in charity, in zeal, in spiritual life, in 

3 



PREFACE. 



pious activity, and the spirit of unity : — she weeps over 
her own work — she furnishes both the occasions and 
weapons of attack — she invites the insult offered to 
her majesty, purity, and gentleness — she is the cause 
of her own misfortunes — the mournful victim of her 
own arrogance and imprudence. 

How much of uncharitableness might be prevented, 
and how extensively the spirit of Christian fellowship 
might be promoted, in the various branches of orthodox 
Christianity, by practically observing the invariable 
truth, that the unity of the churchy in all ages, de- 
pends upon the identity of the doctrines and conditions 
of salvation, and unity of love, and not upon a mere 
. uniformity in ceremony, practice, and opinion, which, 
from time to time, may be adopted, and which are as 
mutable as the manners and customs of men! The 
"Act of Uniformity," passed in England, in 1661-2, 
obliging all the clergy to subscribe the Thirty-nine Arti- 
cles, and use the same forms of worship, caused upward 
of two thousand ministers to quit the Church of Eng- 
land — which was indeed a usurpation of power over 
man's religious nature, and a violation of the spirit of 
the gospel; and yet these very ministers regarded 
their own regulations, and differences of opinion in 
religious matters, as just causes of divisions among 
themselves, and exclusiveness toward each other — an 
example, alas, lamentable in its influence in our own 
country! If our Christian principles and experience 
are founded on the sweet, simple, and gentle laws of 
the gospel, framed as they are by infinite wisdom, 
universal in their sanction, boundless in the range of 
their blessings, written in the blood of their meek and 



PREFACE. 



compassionate Author, and designed to unite mankind 
in the bonds of peace on earth, preparatory to com- 
munion in heaven, why should we regard, with scrupu- 
lous tenacity, mere difference in external rites and 
ceremonies as an insurmountable barrier to unity and 
fellowship on earth ? Can we not be in spirit on earth 
what we shall be in heaven ? Are not those principles 
which are sufficient to secure eternal salvation in 
heaven, sufficient to secure a catholic spirit and com- 
munion of saints on earth? If we believe they are 
not, then let us never offer up a prayer again on the 
principle contained in the admirable form of prayer 
prescribed by our Saviour — ''Thy will be done on 
earth, as it is done in heaven." Are not the same 
principles which were able to preserve the church in 
the bonds of peace and the unity of the spirit, in the 
days of Christ and his apostles, sufficient to preserve 
the church in the same unity and communion, in all 
ages of time ? What other means to protect, or what 
other chart to guide, do we need, in addition to those 
which the apostolic chui'ch possessed ? Do not union, 
prosperity, and stability depend upon the same great 
fundamental principles and necessary things now, as 
then were required ? We say necessary — from which 
man can no more take any part, and to which he can 
no more add any thing, than he can affect the necessary 
being of God himself. 

It is surprising and affecting, that any difference of 
opinion ever should have arisen in the church on the 
subject of Baptism ; and yet there never was a subject, 
respecting which so great a diversity of opinion has 
unnecessarily existed among pious men as that of Bap- 



6 PREFACE. 



tism — a diversity of opinion that has been productive 
of nothing but injury to the church. Some consider 
it invested with indispensable importance, others with 
no importance — some place all the importance in the 
mode and subjects, and none in the thing signified — 
some consider it a Jewish prejudice or pagan super- 
stition, while others solemnly regard it as a Christian 
ordinance or sacrament, and place all the importance 
in the subjects and signification, and none in the mode. 
Regarding the mode as non-essential, and the subjects 
and signification only as important, with an humble 
confidence in Divine Providence, we commit the follow- 
ing volume to its destiny. 

Fredericksburg, March 17th, 1853. 



TABLE OP CONTENTS. 



Preface 3 

Inteoduction 11 



PAET I. 

NATURE AND OBLIGATION OP BAPTISM. 

Chap. I. Nature of Baptism. 

1. It is a solemn and public profession of faith in the 

Trinity 19 

2. It is expressive of adoption into the family of God.... 20 

3. It is expressive of spiritual union with the Son 20 

4. It is expressive of regeneration by the Spirit 20 

5. It is expressive of renunciation of the world 21 

6. It is expressive of spiritual union among Christians 21 

7. It is expressive of hope of a future resurrection 22 

8. It sets forth the doctrine of original sin and free 

grace 22 

Obligation op Baptism. 

1. Founded upon the command of Christ 23 

2. Pounded upon the practice of the Apostles 23 

XL Circumstances Essential to the Validity of Baptism. 

1. The proper administrator 25 

2. The proper form... 26 

3. The proper subjects 27 

4. The proper element 27 

5. The proper mode 27 

7 



TABLE OP CONTENTS. 



PART II. 

THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 
Chap. I. The Mode op Baptism Inferential. 

PAGE 

1. From the English Scriptures 30 

2. From the original Greek word /Sanri^w, haptizo 33 

11. 3. From the original Greek prepositions 76 

III. 4. From the harmonious connection of the mode with the 

known circumstances of spiritual baptism, &c 88 

rV". 5. From the circumstantial nature of the institutions of 
, Christianity 99 

V. 6. Collateral proofs. 

(1.) That mode most proper which is of universal appli- 
cation 109 

(2.) That mode most proper which best comports with 

devotion 109 

(3.) Immersion, in the case of females, indelicate 110 

(4.) The difficulty in certain cases in Scripture avoided, 
upon presumption that sprinkling or pouring was 
practised v. 113 

(5.) Disposition of the Baptists to make a new transla- 
tion of Panri^co 131 

(6.) Disposition of the Baptists to destroy the analogy 
existing between the Baptism of the Holy Ghost 
and external Baptism 133 

VI. Unfairness of the Baptists. 

(7.) Nearly the whole Christian church, from the days 
of the Apostles to the present time, has practised 
sprinkling and pouring, and opposed exclusive im- 
mersion..... 133 

(8.) Evangelical pEedobaptist churches crowned with 

signal success in publishing the Gospel 157 

VII. Objections Considered. 

1. Baptism is a positive institution 158 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 9 

PAGB 

2. Since John is found at Jordan, the inference is, that 

he baptized by immersion 159 

3. Why did the apostles baptize in the open air, and at 

the water's edge, where was much water? 162 

4. Where reference is made to the operations of the 

Holy Spirit, under the ideas of sprinkling and 
pouring, the meaning is figurative 162 

5. Immersion is set forth under the figure of a burial.... 163 

6. Obligation to be immersed is based on example of 

Christ 171 

7. Immersion at the hands of an administrator who has 

not been immersed, is not valid Baptism 183 

8. Sprinkling was substituted for immersion by the As- 

sembly of Divines at Westminster, in 1643, by 

a majority of one 200 

9. Immersion is Baptism, and hence it is absurd to talk 

of mode of Baptism 202 

10. There is no cross in sprinkling 203 

11. The popular sophistry of the Baptists 206 



PAKT III. 

INFANT BAPTISM. 
Chap. I. The Ground of Infant Baptism 211 

II. In all Covenants of God made with Man, Infants 

HAVE BEEN INCLUDED 225 

HL The Christian Church the continuation of the Old 

Testament Church 227 

IV. The New Testament in Harmony with the DocTRmB 

OF Infant Baptism 259 

V. The Scriptural Argument contdtubd : Oihos — Oikia.... 287 

VI. The Silence op Scripture, &c 300 

VII. Collateral Proofs of Infant Baptism 306 



10 TABLE OJF CONTENTS. 



PART IV. 

OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 

PAGE 

Chap. I. Infant Baptism an Innovation , 326 

11. History of Opposition to Infant Baptism 336 

11. Other Objections Considered 352 

rv. Collateral Objections Considered 368 

PART V. 

BENEFITS OF INFANT BAPTISM, AND THE DEDICATION OF 
INFANTS IN BAPTISM A SOLEMN DUTY. 

Chap. I. Benefits of Infant Baptism 397 

II. Dedication of Infants in Baptism a Solemn Duty 409 

III. Conclusion , 415 

Index of Scripture Texts 419 

General Index 423 



BAPTISM. 



Preparatory to the consideration of Baptism, it is im- 
portant that we give a brief explanation of the nature of 
the Sacraments. 

The essential characteristics of a sacrament are six in 
number, namely: it must be divine in its institution, sig- 
nificative in its meaning, appropriate in its nature, connected 
with the church, universal in its application,* and obligatory 
till repealed. A rite having these marks, designated by Grod, 
properly becomes the formal sensible seal of the covenant 
of salvation under any dispensation of divine grace. And 
thus a sacrament may be placed in natural things, by which, 
in a moral sense, they become difierent from what they were 
in a natural sense — their natural character being in no re- 
spect changed — only a moral sense is superadded. For ex- 
ample, the tree of life was a pledge of immortality to Adam 
while he observed faithfully the divine law — ^not that the 
tree was invested with the elements of incorruption, by 
which immortality could be. secured to Adam, but because 

* That is, not inconsistent with climate, sickness, age, or any laws 
of nature, or circumstances of divine providence. 

11 



12 INTRODUCTION. 



it was designated by Grod as the seal of his covenant. And 
so, the '^ bow set in the cloud" is a sign to man that there 
shall " no more be a flood to destroy the earth" — ^not that 
the rainbow possesses any philosophical efficacy to prevent a 
second deluge, but that it has been selected by God as the 
most prominent, impressive, sensible seal of his covenant 
with Noah and his posterity — a natural phenomenon con- 
spicuous upon the retreat of the storm, as the encouraging 
sign that Grod is ever mindful of his covenant. The rain- 
bow is the same now that it was when it spanned the heavens 
before the flood ; it never can have any thing added to its 
natural state, unless natural laws be modified ; but as a sign 
appointed l^y Grod, it possesses a value which it never had 
before the deluge. For the same reason, silver coin stamped 
with a public impression acquires a new valuation, though it 
is changed in no respect in its natural state. Calvin ob- 
serves, ^' Even from the beginning of the world, whenever 
God gave to the holy fathers any sign, it is well known to 
have been inseparably connected with some doctrine, without 
which our senses would only be astonished with the mere view 
of it." * Thus all the sensible signs of the Jewish economy 
were connected severally with some prominent doctrine, 
either to be believed or practised. And so Baptism is con- 
nected with all the prominent doctrines of the Christian 
dispensation, and, as an outward seal, instituted and enjoined 
by God, it is invested with all the meaning and authority of 
a seal in its common acceptation. Again, Calvin defines a 
sacrament to be ^^an assistance and support of faith — an 
outward sign by which the Lord seals in our consciences the 
promises of his good-will toward us, to support the weakness 
of our faith ; and we on our part testify our piety to him, in 
his presence, and that of angels, as well as before men." 

* Insts. b. iv. c. xiv. sec. 4. 



INTRODUCTION. 13 



After the same form is the definition of a sacrament given 
in our Discipline : " Sacraments ordained of Christ are not 
only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but 
rather they are certain signs of grace, and God's good-will 
toward us, by the which he doth invisibly work in us, and 
doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our 
faith in him/' 2 

The explanation of the origin of that undue- importance 
which is attached to the sacraments by certain sects, is to be 
found in the manner adopted by the ancient Fathers, in 
translating the original Grreek of the New Testament into 
the Latin language. Thus, the Greek word ixuffxrjpiov, mi/s- 
terion, wherever it refers to divine things, the Fathers ren- 
dered by the word sacr amentum, and not arcanum, lest they 
should seem to degrade the dignity of the subject. In pro- 
cess of time, the term sacramentum, which was originally 
only a sign of spiritual things, came to be applied as an in- 
dispensable means and condition of spiritual things. Sacra- 
mentum was confounded with mysterion — ^the sacrament was 
identified with the mystery — that is, in the sacrament the 
mystery was supposed to be hid or concealed ; so that he 
who did not submit himself to the sacrament, it was con- 
cluded, could never understand the mystery of spiritual 
things — never experience regenerating grace. By referring 
to the Latin translation of the following scriptures, the 
origin of this confusion may be discovered : ^^ Having made 
known to us the mystery — mysterion — of his will ;" ^ mys- 
terion is translated sacramentum^. "If ye have heard of 
the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to 
you-ward; how that by revelation he made known unto me 
the — mysterion — mystery," translated sacramentum* ''The 
mysterion — mystery, which he had hid from ages," trans- 



2 Dis. art. xvi. 3 Eph. i. 9. ^ Eph. iii. 3. 

2 



14 INTRODUCTION. 



lated sacr amentum.^ On the other hand, the Latins so 
effectually confounded the meaning of sacramentum with 
that of mi/sterion, that the Grreeks themselves denominated 
the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper mi/steries, 
according to their idea of the proper sense of mysterion. To 
this misapplication of the term sacramentum, is to he ascribed 
the pernicious error of baptismal regeneration. Moreover, 
as man is^ composed of se/ise and spirit, Christ has wisely 
adapted the sacraments to his complex nature ] for the sacra- 
ments are sensible symbols, not only of invisible spiritual 
communion with God, but of spiritual communion and fel- 
lowship with saints. Failing to discriminate between the out- 
ward sensible character of Baptism and its inward spiritual 
meaning, eithei* too much or too little importance has been 
given to baptism. As extremes are found in individual cha- 
racters, so extremes are often found in individual churches. 
On the subject of baptism, the Baptist church has taken one 
extreme, namely, a s]pecific mode, while the Romish church, 
the Church of England, the Puseyites, and the Campbellites, 
have taken the other extreme, namely, spiritual purification 
or regeneration. The ideas of mode and purification, it is 
true, are both contained in baptism, the former necessarily, 
and the latter symbolically; but the Baptists err in restricting 
mode exclusively to immersion, and the Romish church and 
its offshoots, in sinking the ceremonial, emblematical sense 
of baptism into the spiritual, and in investing the rite with 
a spiritual energy to destroy sin and communicate the Holy 
Spirit. 

After a careful examination of standard authorities, we 
have been enabled to present to the general reader the follow- 
ing analysis of opinion on the subject of baptismal regene- 
ration. The Romish church, at an early age, arrogantly 

5 Col. L 27. 



INTRODUCTION. 15 



assumed that baptism, ex opere operatOj from the -work 
wrought or performance of the act, in all cases, non ponen- 
tihus ohicem mortalis peccati, who do not oppose the obstacle 
of mortal sin, confers regenerating grace. On the other 
hand, many continental Reformers assumed that baptism was 
a mere sign, merum signum. In the Church of England 
arose several parties, namely, those who maintain that "elect 
infants^' only are regenerated in baptism ; those who main- 
tain that those infants only are regenerated in whom "future 
repentance and faith are foreseen by God;'' those who main- 
tain that those infants only are regenerated in whom "a seed, 
or priTiciple, or Tiahit, or spiritual bias is implanted in the 
heart;" those who maintain that those infants only are 
regenerated in baptism, "one of whose parents (really or at 
any rate nominally) is believing ;'' those who maintain that 
those infants only are regenerated whose "parents make 
vicarious pledges at the time of baptism ;" those who main- 
tain "that the full baptismal blessing is not conferred in 
any case of infant baptism, but a proportionate influence 
only is bestowed ;" those who maintain — ^the High-Church 
party in the Church of England, the Tractarian or Puseyite 
party, the school of Laud and Montague in the latter part 
of the reign of James I., and the High-Church party in 
America — that regeneration universally accompanies baptism. 
The original compilers of the Baptismal Services in the 
Church of England were Calvinists ; and hence",- the dogma 
of baptismal regeneration in the case of " elect infants" was 
adopted. The Tractarian party, or High-Church in England 
and America, interpret the Baptismal Services as the Bomish 
church does. All Aese parties may be classed under two 
general divisions: first, those who maintain that God, in 
the case of all infants, has positively tied or connected 
spiritual regeneration with baptism, and in all cases of adult 
baptism, in which no impediment of mortal sin is placed in 



16 INTRODUCTION. 



the way, spiritual regeneration is conferred — this is ihe first 
class. The second class maintain that regenerati&ii is not 
so tied or connected with baptism, either in the ca&e of the 
infant or the adult, but depends upon the conditions which 
we have mentioned. And yet both classes agree* in one 
thing, which is, that spiritual regeneration, in the case of 
both infant and adult, is conferred in baptism — thoy differ 
only in opinion as to the extent of the blessing, and the con- 
ditions upon which it is bestowed. It is easy to see how 
these errors all originated in confounding, as we have already 
stated, the thing signified with the sacramental sign and 
seal. 

There was, among the old Reformers and in the Church 
of England, another party, who maintained what we regard 
the proper view of baptism ; and this view is still maintained 
by the Low-Church in England and America, and by other 
Protestant churches. It will be the object of the first part 
of this work to show, that baptism is enjoined in the Scrip- 
tures merely as. a sacrament, in the sense we have defined, 
and that no specific mode is enjoined in its religious usage. 

In order to see the appropriateness of the meaning we 
propose j;o give farther to baptism, it is necessary to consider 
for a moment the history of the gradual development of the 
plan of redemption. As soon as Adam violated the law of 
works under which he had been placed in original perfec- 
tion, God was under legal necessity, either at once to inflict 
the threatened and destructive penalty incurred, or in mercy 
to provide a proper and just method of recovery. Such a 
method was the plan of redemption, through the sacrifice of 
the Son of Grod. The full developme||t of this method is 
to be gradually made by many introductory measures, as in 
the revolutions of time the necessities of man shall require. 

A few centuries after the fall of man, in the application 
of measures to instruct and reform the posterity of Adam, 



INTRODUCTION. 17 



the corrupt and incorrigible world is overwlielmed in the 
Deluge. Soon after the Deluge, the descendants of Noah 
desire to establish a permanent association that shall ulti- 
mately embrace the whole earth, which, should they succeed, 
must render the contagion of moral corruption the more 
rapid in its diffusion, and the force of wicked example the 
more energetic and obstinate in its results. To prevent 
these consequences, language is confounded and the human 
race is dispersed over the earth. Soon after this dispersion, 
idolatry becomes the general sin; and to check this evil, 
Abraham is called, the worship of the true Grod set up, the 
Mosaic dispensation introduced, and a peculiar people, the 
Jews, are hereby. preserved from the general sin; and hence, 
in part, we have the explanation of the design of circumci- 
sion under the Jewish dispensation. But the Jewish dis- 
pensation — designed to preserve the worship of the true God 
and to prepare the world for the coming of Christ — ^being 
insufficient to reform the human race, Christ, the promised 
IMessiah, at length appears, and, in his incarnation, life, and 
death he develops, consummates, and publishes to the world 
the great principles of the plan of redemption under the 
form of the Christian dispensation. The Christian dispen- 
sation is spiritual and final — all others, in one form or other, 
to a great extent were sensible and preparatory. Hence, the 
Christian dispensation is called the dispensation of the Spirit. 
But how is man to be formally initiated into the church 
under the Christian dispensation? By baptism. And why 
by baptism? Because, first, the services of the Christian 
dispensation are pure and spiritual; secondly, because the 
Sacrifice upon which it is founded is holy and spiritual; 
thirdly, because the agent, the Holy Spirit, that applies that 
sacrifice, is pure and spiritual; fourthly, because the condi- 
tion of salvation is faith, pure and spiritual ; fifthly, because 
the effects that follow in the heart and life of the believer 



18 INTRODUCTION. 



are pure and holy : in a word, because the Christian dispen- 
sation contains all the spiritual blessings and doctrines requi- 
site for the recovery and salvation of man — all of which 
water baptism, as a sign and seal, sets forth and expresses 
more significantly than any thing else can do. And thus 
the baptism of water is divinely instituted as the proper 
initiatory sacrament of the Covenant of Grace under the 
Christian dispensation. 

Hence the propriety of John's baptism, as preparatory to 
a profession of Christianity. "John verily baptized with 
the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they 
should believe on him who should come, that is, on Christ 
Jesus'' ^ — the Founder of the Christian dispensation of the 
grace of God. The Apostle Paul, in his epistle to the Gala- 
tians — one of the first churches founded under the Christian 
dispensation — thus unfolds the nature of baptism : " For as 
many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on 
Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither 
bond nor free, there is neither male nor female : for ye are 
all one in Christ." '' That is. By baptism ye have been form- 
ally initiated into the church under the Christian dispensa- 
tion, and thus publicly ye have niade a profession of Chris- 
tianity in contradistinction to Judaism. "And if ye be 
Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according 
to the promise." ^ And so Peter, on the day of Pentecost, 
urges the Jews to "repent," and be "baptized in the name 
of the Lord Jesus :" ^ that is. Renounce your sins, relinquish 
your Jewish prejudices, believe in Christ, and be initiated 
by baptism into the Christian church. Such. is the general 
nature of baptism; but as it embraces many important par- 
ticulars, we shall proceed, without further delay, to the spe- 
cial consideration of the subject of this treatise. 

6 Acts xix. 4. 7 Gal. iii. 27, 28. « (jal. iii. 29. 9 Acts ii. 38. 



PAKT I. 



CHAPTER I. 

NATURE AND OBLIGATION Or BAPTISM. 

Water baptism is the outward sign of the inward seal to 
aU the covenanted mercies of God, embraced in the atone- 
ment of Christ J under the Christian dispensation^ lohether 
obtained conditionally or unconditionally — conditionally as 
it respects adults^ and unconditionally as it respects infants. 
Thus, if becomes the means of formal initiation into the 
church, under the Christian dispensation. It embraces also, 
a solemn, public, and practical profession of Christianity, 
and hence, it is essentially designed to distinguish the church 
from the world. 

As the initiatory sacrament of the Christian dispensation, 
it implies faith in all the doctrines which it. contains, obedi- 
ence to all the precepts which it enjoins, the discharge of all 
the duties which it imposes, and a title to all the "blessings 
which it promises : it relates to our faith, to our practice, to 
our hopes, to our obligations, and to Grod^s faithfulness. i 

1. It solemnly and publicly expresses our faith in the 
Trinity. " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing ' 
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost." 1 

» Matt, xxviii. 19. 

19 



20 NATURE OP BAPTISM. 



2. It is expressive of our adoption into the family of God. 
''For ye are all the children of Grod, by faith in Christ 
Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into 
Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor 
Grreek, there "is neither bond nor free, there is neither male 
nor female : for ye are all one in Christ Jesus; and if ye be 
Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according 
to the promise.'' ^ 

3. It is expressive of spiritual union with the Son. 
''Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into 
Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are 
buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ 
was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, 
even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we 
have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we 
shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. Knowing 
this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body 
of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not 
serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if 
we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live 
with him; knowing that Christ, being raised from the dead, 
dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 
For in that he died, he died unto sin once; but in that he 
liveth, he liveth unto G-od. Likewise reckon ye also your- 
selves to be dead unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus 
Christ our Lord.'' 3 

4. It is expressive of regeneration hy the Spirit. " Jesus 
answered. Verily, verily, I say unto thee. Except a man be 
born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the 
kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; 
and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not 
that I said unto thee. Ye must be born again." * Baptism 

2 Gal. iii. 26-29. 3 Rom. vi. 3-11. ^ John iii. 5-7. 



NATURE OF BAPTISM. 21 



is emblematical of that inward, spiritual change, which is of 
the operation of the Holy Spirit, and hence baptism cannot 
be sustained as any part of the condition of the new 
birth. That is, the sacrament of baptism cannot be the con- 
dition of that which it signifies as already existing. If bap- 
tism is the condition of regeneration, then faith is not; if 
faith is the condition of this change, then baptism is not; 
or if both faith and baptism are the condition, then baptism 
loses its significative character, since it cannot properly 
signify that of which it is the essential condition. 

Baptism, therefore, in the above text, is to be regarded 
as emblematical, and not conditional, of the new birth. 

5. It is expressive of renunciation of the world. It is 
designed to remind us, through all subsequent life, of the 
sacred vows and obligations assumed in baptism. Thus, the 
Apostle Paul, in writing to the churches at Rome, Corinth, 
and Colosse, refers to their baptism for this purpose. 
" Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into 
Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we 
are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as 
Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the 
Father, even- so we also should walk in newness of life.^'^ 
It is to be lamented, that the sacraments have so little in- 
fluence on our lives. 

Q. It is the visible expression of spiritual union among 
Christians. "I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech 
you, that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are 
called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, 
forbearing one another in love, endeavoring to keep the 
unity of the Spirit, in the bond of peace. There is one 
body, and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of 
your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism." ^ ^ 

5 Rom vi. 3-6. 6 Eph. iv. 1-5. 



22 NATURE OF BAPTISM. 



indispensable characteristic of baptism is, that it connects 
with the church. The design of the sacraments is "to keep 
Christ's worshippers and servants in one faith, and in the 
confession of the same/' "For/' to use the language of 
Augustine, "men cannot be united in the profession of 
religion, whether true or false, unless they are connected by 
some communion of visible signs or sacraments/''' And 
again, "Baptism also serves for our confession before men. 
For it is a mark by which we openly profess our desire to 
be numbered among the people of Grod, by which we testify 
our agreement with all Christians in the worship of one 
God, and in - one religion, and by which we make a public 
declaration of our faith." ^ 

7. It is expressive of hope of a future and triumphant 
resurrection. "Buried with him by baptism into death; 
that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory 
of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of 
life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness 
of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrec- 
tion." ^ " Else what shall they do who are baptized for the 
dead, if the dead rise not at all ? why are they then baptized 
for the dead r^o 

Finally — It sets forth the doctrine of original sin. " The 
corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is en- 
gendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far 
gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature in- 
clined to evil, and that continually," ^* is clearly and solemnly 
taught in infant baptism. Reference to the propriety of in- 
fant baptism on the ground of the original corruption of 
man, furnished Augustine with an irresistible argument 
against Pelagius. As it sets forth the doctrine of original 



' Calvin's Inst. b. iv. c. xiv. sec. 19. ^ Calvin*s Inst. b. iv. c. xv. see. 13. 
5 Rom. Ti. 3-5. 'O I Cor. xv. 29. " See art. vii. of our Discipline. 



OBLIGATION OF BAPTISM. 23 



sin, it also sets forth the doctrine of free grace. The doc- 
trine of free grace is especially set forth in infant baptism, 
since infants have an unconditional title both to salvation 
and' baptism according to the doctrine of grace before faith : 
in the case of infants, titles and claims are founded upon 
free grace alone. It may be added, that the whole creed of 
our church, with all the obligations of the gospel of Jesus 
Christ, is set forth in the offices of baptism as laid down in 
our ritual. N"o objection can be maintained against this 
service of the church, unless, in any instance, the creed of 
the church be proved to be inconsistent with the plain word 
of Grod. 

We shall next consider the obligation to be baptized. 

1. The obligation to be baptized is founded upon the com- 
mand of Christ : ^^ Gro ye therefore, and teach all nations, 
baptizing them,^^ &c.^ This is positive and decisive. 

2. Upon the practice of the apostles. The converts were 
baptized at Philippi,^^ at Corinth,^* at Ephesus,^^ at Colosse,^^ 
throughout Asia Minor, ^^ and at Rome.*^ And hence we 
may infer that all the converts in the other apostolic churches 
were also baptized. Thus, obligation to be baptized rests 
upon the highest authority in the universe. Those who 
have exercised saving faith, and have not been baptized in 
infancy, cannot neglect this obligation without incurring the 
displeasure of Grod. The sacrament of baptism is positive 
as well as moral, and voluntary neglect of it cannot be for- 
given without hearty repentance before God. As baptism is 
the formal means by which the subject is consecrated to 
Christ, obligation to observe it extends no farther than the 
importance which is connected with the formal, sensible in- 

'2 Matt, xxviii. 19. ■. " Acts xvi. 15-33. 

14 Acts xviii. 8 ; 1 Cor. i. 13 ; xv. 29. 

15 Acts iv. 5 ; xix. 6. is Col. ii. 12. 
" 1 Pet. iii. 21. is Rom. vi. 3. 



24 OBLIGATION OF BAPTISM. 



stitutes of Christianity; and neglect of baptism, as the 
neglect of the Lord's supper — ^the other sacrament of the 
Christian dispensation — has all the guilt which is connected 
with the neglect of any of the ordinances of religion. Bap- 
tism, in the case of adults, should be received at the earliest 
opportunity after the act of justifying faith has been 
exercised. 

The question is often asked, Is baptism a matter of moral 
obligation ? The specific nature of this question must first 
be determined. If the question have reference to a specific 
and invariable mode, or to any specific and particular time^ 
the answer is, that these circumstances of baptism are im- 
material and non-essential, But that the believer who has 
not been baptized is under moral obligation to be baptized 
according to some mode which he may prefer, and at the 
earliest suitable time, there can be no doubt. As baptism, 
in several of its essential features, however, is wholly sensible, 
its observance must depend upon concurrent circumstances 
of a sensible cliaracter; and so, under some circumstances, 
it may be postponed or omitted without guilt,*^ — as in the 
case of the penitent on the cross, and in any case where 
baptism is impracticable. 

Note. — There is an important design connected with the 
institution of baptism, which must strike the attention of 
every careful reader with peculiar force. Embracing, as 
baptism does, the principles just considered, and being the 
initiating sacrament of the Christian church, it continues a 
standing proof to all ages of the divine origin of the Chris- 
tian religion. The continued observance of rites and cere- 
monies through succeeding ages, presents the strongest evi- 
dence of the authenticity of their original institution. The 

19 It is unlike faith in these respects, which is purely a spiritual exer- 
cise, and hence is independent of outward circumstances, and so is of 
immediate, universal, and perpetual obligation. 



CIRCUMSTANCES ESSENTIAL. 25 



passover, the feast of unleavened bread, and other institu- 
tions of the Jewish system, were standing proofs to the Jews 
of the divine origin of their religion. So baptism and the 
Lord's supper remain to this day, and will so remain to the 
end of time, as commanding evidences of the divine origin 
of the Christian religion. Their commemorative character, 
while it gives visibility to the Christian church, refers to the 
time, circumstances, and design of the original institution. 
Without the sacraments the church would soon be commin- 
gled with, and indistinguishable from the world. The Qua- 
kers, who reject the sacraments, give visibility to their society 
by peculiarities of dress, speech, and behavior. We little 
think, as Christians, how much we owe to the sacraments as 
evidences of the Christian religion, until the truth and 
authority of Christianity are assailed by the infidel and un- 
believer. Especially does the humble believer find the 
formality of the church corroborative of its divine origin, 
although it may be barren and burdensome to him who has 
assumed it as the counterfeit of real piety. 



CHAPTER II. 

CIRCUMSTANCES ESSENTIAL TO THE VALIDITY OF BAPTISM. 

Having considered the nature and obligation of baptism, 
we shall next consider what constitutes valid baptism. There 
are five elements essential to preserve it in harmony and 
connection with the plan of salvation, and to secure its 
validity as the initiatory sacrament of the church under the 
Christian dispensation, — namely, the proper administrator, 
the proper subjects, the proper form, the proper element, 
and any appropriate mode. 

1. The proper administrator. The man converted yester- 



26 CIRCUMSTANCES ESSENTIAL 



day, and unbaptized to-day, is not the proper administrator. 
Nor is every converted man who has been baptized, though 
of splendid talents or exalted piety, a proper administrator. 
Neither conversion, nor baptism, nor talent, nor piety, singly 
or combined, can invest any one with the right to baptize. 

The proper administrator is the man who has believed in 
the Lord Jesus Christ, been born again, called by the Holy 
Ghost to preach the gospel, and has been solemnly set apart 
by the church, according to its form of ordination, to dis- 
pense the word of Grod and to administer the holy sacra- 
ments.* And so Christ himself, in the great commission, 
invests the preacher only with the right to baptize : " Go ye 
into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature, 
baptizing in the name,'' &c. 

2. The proper form of baptism. Christ, the Founder of 
the Christian dispensation, has given the proper form of 
initiation into the church, under the Christian dispensation, 
in the following words : — " In the name of the Father, and 
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." And why was this 
form given ? Because the three persons in the Trinity are 
engaged in the work of redemption. Why, then, was not 
this form of initiation into the church given at some earlier 
period of the world ? Because the Son of God, one of the 
parties to the great scheme of salvation, had not yet been 
fully revealed to the world; and because, consequently, the 
Holy Spirit, another party, was under the necessity of delay- 
ing the full outpouring of his influences till the ground of 
his agency, the sacrifice of the Son, should be offered up and 

' It is worthy of observation, that ordinarily the church is impressed 
with the presentiment that the candidate for orders is a proper person to 
receive them; even the world, sometimes, is impressed with the same 
belief: as if, it would seem, the Holy Spirit hereby prepares the church 
and the world with confidence in the man thus called to preach the gos- 
pel and administer the sacraments. 



TO THE VALIDITY OF BAPTISM. 27 



manifested to the world. No other form of initiation could 
correspond to the Christian dispensation, and consequently 
baptism is incomplete without this form.^ 

3. The proper subjects. Passing by infants for the pre- 
sent, it is universally conceded that the believer is a proper 
subject of baptism. 

4. The proper element. The proper element is water. 
Water is proper from the purity of its nature and effects, 
and is emblematical of the purity and spirituality of the 
Christian dispensation ; the purity of the Holy Grhost, the 
agent in conversion ; the purity of the results of faith in 
conversion — namely, a pure nature, pure principles, pure 
motives, pure feelings, pure dispositions, holy relations and 
actions, with all the blessings, holy influences, and designs 
of the atonement of Christ provided for man under the 
Christian dispensation. This is the design of water in bap- 
tism — the whole design. To what other use can water be 
applied in the salvation of the soul ? It cannot, in the least 
degree, supersede the efl&cacy of the blood of Christ, nor the 
agency of the Holy Spirit, nor the office and necessity of 
faith : it has a general, expressive, emblematical significa* 
tion — this is all. 

5. The proper mode. The administrator, the subjects, 
the form, and the element to be used in administering bap- 

2 Upon an examination of the practice of the ancient churches it will 
be found, in every case, that consecration to the Trinity is the import 
of baptism. And hence the apostles rebaptized the disciples of John> 
because they had not explicitly professed the Son and the Spirit in the 
baptism of John. Consecration to the Trinity is a primary and peculiar 
import of baptism. Nothing allusive to the burial of the subject, in 
earth or water, is designed. Nor can it have reference to the death of 
Christ, because it has reference solely to the service of Christ. The 
primary and peculiar import of the holy eucharist is the death of Christ, 
and hence it is not credible that baptism also should " show forth his 
death" — that two rites, and the only two rites of the Christian dispensa* 
tion, should refer to the same thing. 



28 CIRCUMSTANCES ESSENTIAL 



tism are all defined and enjoined in the clearest manner, but 
not one word of specification and injunction respecting the 
mode of baptism can be found in the Bible. In the other 
parts of baptism as they stand related to each other, in order 
to secure the validity of its administration, we find all to be 
plain, rational, and harmonious ; but here, as it respects the 
mode, the connection, at first view, at least, is not so easily 
apprehended. As we do not at once see clearly the connec- 
tion of the mode with the other parts of baptism, and as no 
specific mode is explicitly enjoined in the Scriptures, we are 
to seek the best evidence to satisfy our minds on the subject. 
If the mode were clearly and specifically enjoined in the 
Bible, it would be solemnly and perpetually binding, how- 
ever inconsistent it might appear to be with the other parts 
of baptism. But as it is not explicitly defined and enjoined, 
it must be a subject of inference. That is, the connection 
of the mode with the circumstances essential to constitute 
valid baptism must be either expressed or implied, direct or 
inferable. This connection is not directly expressed or en- 
joined in the Bible : therefore the connection is to be inferred, 
and that mode is to be preferred which best preserves this 
connection. 

Before we refer to the sources of inference on this subject, 
it is to be observed, that they furnish nothing in the form 
of command respecting any mode. No one can urge any 
thing to be a duty by command^ which can only be made 
out to be a duty by inference. Much less can any one urge 
that to be a duty upon others, which is made out merely by 
Ms inference. My own inference may bind my conscience, 
but it can be obligatory upon no one else, unless he infer as 
I do. If, therefore, I believe or infer from the sources 
about to be adduced, that immersion is not the most proper 
mode of baptism, I cannot consider my inference as binding 
on any one else, unless he think with me. Respecting the 



TO THE VALIDITY OF BAPTISM. 29 



doctrine of inference, every one is left to his own judgment, 
and consequently, one with the Bible, and all the informa- 
tion he can get, spread out before him, has just as much 
. right to infer that sprinkling and pouring are valid modes, 
as another has that immersion is a valid mode; and hence 
these modes may be regarded as equally binding on him, as 
immersion is on another who regards it as the only valid 
mode. In administering the ordinance of baptism, it is 
essential that water be used in some form, and if any 'par- 
ticular and invariahle mode of its use had been deemed 
necessary by Christ and his apostles, they would most clearly 
have specified it; but as they did not deem it material, they 
have left the whole matter to the inference of the church, — 
and we proceed now to the sources of light with which we 
are furnished on this subject. 



PART 11. 

CHAPTER I. 

THE MODE or BAPTISM. 

The sources of inference respecting tlie mode of baptism 
are six : — 

1. The English Scriptures. 

2. The original Greek word ^aTzzt^io, haptizo. 

3. The original Grreek prepositions. 

4. The harmonious connection of the mode with the 
known circumstances of spiritual baptism, and the plan of 
salvation. 

5. The circumstantial nature of the institutions of Chris- 
tianity is left to the discretion of the church. 

6. Collateral proofs. 

1. The English Scriptures are the first source to which 
we apply for information respecting the mode of baptism. 
All Scripture, adduced in support of any favorite mode, 
leads only to inference. Take the case of immersion as an 
example. Thus, Christ "went up straightway out of the 
water" — and it is inferred that he came up from under the 
water. "Philip and the eunuch both went down into" — 
and it is inferred that the eunuch went down under "the 
water." "Buried with him by baptism into death' ^ — and 
it is inferred that we are to be buried with Christ by bap- 
30 



THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 31 



tism into water. And so of all other passages of Scripture 
from which immersion is inferred. Now it is obvious, that 
all this is nothing but inference, for the words under and 
water are supplied by the imagination; and it is natural for 
the mind under moral influences, while in search of informa- 
tion to support favorite opinions, to strengthen doubtful 
evidences by light from the imagination, and thus incline 
to that mode which seems to be sustained by the strongest 
inferences from the Scriptures. But so far as immersion is 
concerned, it is not once used in the Bible, and consequently 
no inference from the abstract word can be made respecting 
the mode of baptism — ^unless the idea of immersion be drawn 
from the original word ^aTzrt^w, — and not even from this — 
as we shall see presently. But the very words, "sprin- 
kling" and "pouring," are used repeatedly, expressly re- 
ferring to the baptism of the Holy Grhost, which external 
baptism is intended to represent. If similar passages of 
Scripture, in which spiritual baptism is represented by 
immersion, could be produced, then inference for external 
baptism by immersion would be equally strong with inference 
for external baptism by sprinkling and pouring. For bap- 
tism by sprinkling and pouring, there is inference based on 
the very words, which is stronger than mere conjecture; for 
I do contend, that all immersionists guess at immersion, in 
all cases, in the Bible, as the scriptural mode of baptism. 
I put the question : — Do you know that Christ, or any one 
else mentioned in the Bible, was baptized by immersion? 
Do you know it? No, but you honestly infer it; and ac- 
cording to the grounds of your inference is the strength of 
your belief. But the belief of others in other modes is 
better supported, because based on stronger grounds, as we 
hope to show. 

It is sometimes boldly asserted by the uninformed, who 
never read the Bible through, and who are imperfectly ac- 



32 THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 



quainted with a few passages of Scripture from which immer- 
sion is inferred by them, "that sprinkling and pouring are 
not found in the Bible, while immersion is often found." 
This is the presumption, of ignorance, and the dogmatism of 
prejudice. The reverse is true. Immersion, I repeat, is 
not once mentioned in the Bible. From all which we are 
brought to this general conclusion : 

Because the mode of baptism is a subject of inference, 
and therefore arbitrary and discretionary with the responsible 
subject of baptism, we cannot say that sprinkling and pour- 
ing are the only proper modes, but because they are sus- 
tained, as we believe, by stronger inference than immersion, 
while we do not exclude immersion, they are to be preferred 
to immersion. That is, in a case like the present, one in- 
ference has not such pre-eminence over another that it 
should give the stronger the force of express injunction, to 
the exclusion of the weaker as unscriptural and invalid. 
The selection of the mode, therefore, is to be left with the 
candidate for baptism, capable of choosing, as in a thousand 
other instances he enjoys the liberty of selecting the mode. 

Invested with this right of choice, different minds are 
differently and innocently persuaded. Take a supposed case 
of three candidates for baptism. The first comes and says, 
"I desire to be baptized by sprinkling." And why do you 
wish to be baptized by sprinkling ? " Because I believe it 
is the scriptural mode." You believe it is the scriptural 
mode ? " Yes, for I read, ' I will sprinkle clean water upon 
you,' &c. ; ^ and as this refers to the inward baptism, I be- 
lieve the external baptism should correspond as nearly as 
possible to the internal — and therefore I wish to be baptized 
by sprinkling." Yery well, you shall be baptized by sprin- 
kling. 

I Ezek. xxxvi. 23 : Isa. lii. 15. 



THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 83 



The second candidate approaches and says^ ^' But I wish 
to be baptized by pouring/^ And why do you wish to be 
baptized by pouring? "Because I believe it is the scriptu- 
ral mode, for I read, ^I will pour out my spirit upon all 
flesh/ ^ and as this refers to spiritual baptism, I suppose 
the external mode of baptism ought to be analogous — and 
therefore I prefer baptism by pouring/^ Yery well, you 
shall be baptized by pouring. But the third candidate is 
of a different opinion: "I desire,^' says he, "to be baptized 
by immersion.'^ Why so? "Because I believe it is the 
scriptural mode.^' And why do you believe it is the scrip- 
tural mode? "Because, I read, Christ ^went up straight- 
way out of the water /^ and, Hhey went down both into 
the water, both Philip and the eunuch/* and sO I infer 
Christ and the eunuch were immersed, and therefore I wish 
to be baptized by immersion.^' Yery well, you shall be 
baptized by immersion. Each has his mode, founded on 
inference, and the wishes of each are to be respected by the 
proper administrator. That the two former, however, have 
a broader ground for inference than the third candidate, 
cannot be questioned for a moment, since they proceed un- 
der the force of the very words expressing the mode of 
spiritual baptism, which external baptism is intended to 
represent. All the light then from the English Scriptures, 
respecting the mode of baptism, is circumstantially and in- 
ferentially in favor of sprinkling and pouring. 

2. The second source of information respecting the mode 
of baptism, to which we direct attention, is the original 
Greek word, /JaTrrc'Cw, haptizo. 

First. We are not to determine the meaning of this word 
by the particles and appendages with which it is often found 
connected in Scripture. Common readers, who do not un- 

2 Joel ii. 28. 3 Matt. iii. 16. ' 4 Acts viii. 38. 



34 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



derstand the primary meaning of this famous word, deter- 
mine its signification by the particles and phrases thrown 
around it. But this is giving to the original word the 
meaning of its appendages; which is unfair, since the 
appendages have a distinct meaning in themselves, and 
consequently are^ to be examined disconnected from the 
original word. Let us remove these phrases, and consider 
them by themselves. The phrases, ^* went down into," " came 
up out of," ^^when he came up straightway out of," "in 
Jordan," " buried into death," and suchlike expressions are 
to be examined separately. Now, do these phrases mean 
immersion? Certainly not; and as a plain reader, unac- 
quainted with the original word, you are left to the whole 
force of inference from these phrases. We offer you the 
following criticisms, to prove that the particles and append- 
ages connected with this word had no reference to its meaa- 
ing, but to the circumstances of its use, and therefore they 
can furnish no aid in determining the signification of bapiizo. 
In the case of the eunuch, the phrases "went down into," 
and "came up out of" had reference to the chariot and the 
manner of approaching and leaving the water, and not to 
the manner or mode of baptism. The words which are 
translated "went down into," and "came out of," are xara- 
^aivto, TcatahainOj and ava^aivcoj anahaino. That we may 
learn the meaning of these terms in the present instance, 
let us consider their meaning in other passages of Scripture. 
The multitude, while Christ was nailed to the cross, railed 
on him, and said — " If thou be the Son of Grod, come down 
from — xard^rid-i, katahethi — the cross." ^ On the morning 
of the resurrection of Christ, " the angel of the Lord de- 
scended — xara^aq, hatdbas — from heaven," &c.^ And Jesus 
straightway coming up out of- — d.va^aivu)v dnoy anahainon 

5 Matt, xxvfi. 40. 6 Matt, xxviii. 2. 



THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 35^ 



apo — the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit 
like a dove descending — xa-ca^aivovy katahainon — upon 
him/' 7 '^ And Jesus goeih up into — ava^aivet, anahainei — 
a mountain/' '^And the scribes which came down — xara- 
^avTeq, katahantes — from Jerusalem/' "And Jesus went 
up — dvsl37), anehe — unto them into the ship'' — where from ? 
Why, right from the water — from the surface of the sea : 
certainly he did not go up from under the water, as the 
Baptists suppose the eunuch went up from the water into 
his chariot. "And as they came down from — y.aTa^aiv6vro)Vy 
hatahainonton — the mountain." "And he desired Philip 
that he would come up — ava^a^ra, anahanta — and sit with 
him." ^ Thus, when Matthew says that Christ " came up 
straightway out of the water," and when Luke says that 
the eunuch "went down into the water," and "came up out 
of the water," we are not to suppose that these phrases in- 
volve the idea of immersion, or furnish us any satisfactory 
light respecting the mode of baptism, but only refer to the 
fact of baptism. In the case of Philip, we have already 
seen him go up into — ava/5avra, (verse 31,) — the chariot, and 
seat himself by the side of the eunuch. Presently (verse 38) 
we see Philip descending — xari^-q<jav — ^from the chariot to — 
elq, eis — the water with the eunuch, to baptize him. Not 
one word in all this respecting the mode of baptizing. The 
phrases "down into," and "came up out of," or from, (as 
ex, eh, may be translated,) refer to Philip as much as to the 
eunuch, and describe their descent from the chariot to the 
water, and return from the water to the chariot. If these 
phrases signify immersion, then what force is to be given to 
the member of the sentence — " and he baptized him ?" If 



7 Mark i. 10. 

8 Acts viii. 31. Without doubt, anabanta here refers to the chariot; 
for as yet they had not reached any water. 



36 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



the plirases and the member of the sentence both imply im- 
mersion, then the eunuch was baptized twice ! — for the whole 
statement is, they " both went down into the water, and he 
baptized him." Besides, if the phrase ^'down into the 
water'' signifies immersion, then Philip, the administrator, 
was also immersed : " and they went down both into the 
WATER, both Philip and the eunuch." But if we 
consider the phrases as referring only to the manner of ap- 
proaching and leaving the water, they may apply with equal 
propriety both to Philip and the eunuch, without involving 
the idea of the immersion of either the subject or the ad- 
ministrator. Therefore, the idea of mode cannot be deduced 
from the declaration, "and he baptized him." 

If the particles "in," " into," and the phrase " out of" 
mean under, then Daniel was thrown under the lions' den. 
Jesus went under the mountain. Jacob went down under 
Egypt. Zaccheus climbed under the tree. Christ and the 
penitent thief went up from the cross under paradise. John 
baptized under Jordan. Jesus came up straightway from 
under Jordan. The sons of the prophets went under Jordan 
to cut wood. The Romans were buried by baptism under 
death. The G-alatians were baptized under Christ. Paul 
baptized the jailer under the jail. The Jews were baptized 
under Moses, and under the sea. Peter went under the sea, 
and cast a hook. All the church were baptized under one 
body. It is needless to multiply instances of the misappli- 
cation of these terms ; we will conclude by simply stating 
that the preposition ev, en, translated in Jordan, in the New 
Testament, is rendered 150 times with, and more than 100 
times at. It is evident, therefore, that the particles and 
phrases thrown around the word haptizo determine nothing 
respecting its meaning, and of course can furnish no infor- 
mation concerning the mode of baptism. 

Secondly. Since the whole strength of the case turns at 



THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 37 



last on the word haptizo, we will take it disconnected from 
its appendages, and examine into its meaning. 

It is asserted by the Baptists, that haptizo means to im- 
merse, and only to immersS, and needs not the appendage 
of other words to determine its meaning. Very well; let us 
take up haptizo by itself. " Went down into/' and " came 
up out of'^ are to be taken away, and ^^he baptized him'' is 
to settle the mode of the baptism of the eunuch. "When 
he went up straightway out of," and "in Jordan" are to be 
taken away, and "when he was baptized" is to determine the 
mode of Christ's baptism. So, " buried with him" is to be 
taken away, and " by baptism" is to determine the mode of 
baptism in the case of the Romans. Baptizo, as it now 
stands alone, is wholly divested of the force of the inference 
connected with its appendages, and we are to determine the 
mode of baptism by the inherent meaning of baptizo, as it is - 
used in the gospel sense, exclusive of all other considerations. 
We proceed to consider at large the original meaning of bap- 
tizo — a word respecting whose meaning the Christian church 
has been involved in so many unhappy controversies ever 
since discussion about it commenced. 

The primary meaning of /SaTrrt'Cw, in its EVANGELICAL 
SENSEj is TO WASH — a meaning corresponding to the nature 
of spiritual baptism, and the character of the Christian dis- 
pensation, of which baptism is the initiatory sacrament. In 
this sense baptizo is used rationally and emblematically, 
since such a meaning is in connection with the whole scheme 
of salvation; while, in the sense of immersion, it is used 
without connection and without rational signification. It is 
admitted that classic authors employ the word in the sense 
of immersion ; but then, in the first place, it is to be ob- 
served that they often use the word in other senses also ; 
and, in the second place, what did ancient classic authors 
know about the sacrament of baptism ? Had they under- 



38 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



stood the nature and design of Christian baptism, and then 
used the word in the sense of immersion, there might be 
some force in the references which Baptists make to them 
as authority in settling the evangelical sense of haptizo. 
But as the case now stands, how are we to tell whether the 
word is to be used in the sense of immersion, or in the other 
senses in which it is used by classic authors ? It is evident 
that we are to determine its evangelical sense from the gos- 
pel ', and, if the sense in which it is plainly used in the gos- 
pel be clearly determined to be otherwise than what Greek 
writers give it in the quotations usually made by Baptist 
critics, then we are to adopt the evangelical sense in prefer- 
ence to the classical — ^not that the one is in opposition to 
the other, but that the evangelical sense of the term is some- 
times given by classic authors, which the sacred penmen 
selected as applicable to Christian baptism. 

Preparatory to the consideration of the evangelical mean- 
ing of haptizo, we invite attention to the following remarks : 

First. There are two kinds of evidence addressed to our 
belief, namely, moral and demonstrative; and such is the 
constitution of mind, that both these kinds of evidence are 
regarded equally strong and satisfactory. And such is the 
nature of certain great moral questions, that demonstrative 
evidence is inapplicable in settling them : indeed, the most 
important questions of life, reputation, and property are 
sometimes settled by moral evidence alone. Moral evidence 
as effectually convinces as demonstrative evidence does in 
the plainest questions of mathematics. All philological 
reasoning is circumstantial, moral, and cumulative, and em- 
braces all the facts and laws and their corresponding mental 
impressions in a given case. 

Secondly. In the translation, or transfer of a word from 
one language to another, the original signification cannot in 
all cases be preserved. In John iii. 5, we have — " Except a 



THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 39 



man be bom of water, and the Spirit, be cannot enter into the 
kingdom of Grod/^ Now the primary and classic meaning 
of the word T.vevfia — -pneuma — here rendered Spirit, is wind ; 
and the literal translation should be — "except a man be born 
of water and the wind,'' &c. Indeed, in the 8th verse, this 
word is translated wind: "the wind bloweth where it list- 
eth,^^ &c. Upon the principle of interpretation adopted by 
the Baptists, it is impossible to show that the doctrine of 
regeneration, or the personal existence of the Holy Spirit, is 
taught in these verses. Take another example : — " For the 
Sadducees say, there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor 
spirit; but the Pharisees believe both.^^^ The original 
meanings of the terms here used are : avdazaaiq — anastasis 
— a rising up; ayysXoq — angelos — messenger; andTrveu/xa — 
pneuma, as above, wind. The literal meaning would be — 
" For the Sadducees say, there is no rising up, neither mes- 
senger, nor wind; but the Pharisees believe both" — a trans- 
lation absolutely ridiculous and absurd. Again : " For with 
God nothing shall be impossible." — Obx ddo^arijffst Tzapd rip 
6eu) Tzdu pTjiJ.a.'^^ And again : " There shall no flesh be 
saved," ^'^ — oux av saib^r} Tzdaa adp^. On these verses. Dr. 
G-eorge Campbell says — " These passages in the New Testa- 
ment Greek are phrases which, in my apprehension, would 
not have been more intelligible to a Greek author than Arabic 
or Persian would have been. '^Prjp.a for thing, pdaa ovx for 
no one, and adp^ for person, &c., would to him, I suspect, 
have proved insurmountable obstacles. This is but a small 
specimen — not the hundredth part of what might be adduced 
on the subject." ^ To give but one more example : Nopoq, 
which originally meant a song, soon came to mean a law, 
because the fii'st laws of all nations, according to Plato, were 



9 Acts xxiii. 8. i" Luke i. 37. 

" Matt. xxiv. 22. ^ Prelim. Dis. vol. i. p. 30. 



40 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



composed in verse and sung; and Aristotle^ in his problems, 
says, that before the use of writing it was customary to keep 
the laws in remembrance by singing them. The laws of 
ancient Sparta were all arranged in verse, and so were the 
laws of Tuisto, the first legislator of the ancient Germans. 

Thirdly. Admitting, which we do not, that immerse is the 
meaning invariably given to haptizo in classic Greek, yet 
classic Greek is not to be the standard in defining the mean- 
ing of the New Testament Greek — not to be the standard 
in determining the evangelical signification of haptizo. The 
opinions of learned authors on the subject shall first be 
adduced. ^^ A Lexicon of the New Testament, at the present 
day, presupposes the fact, that the language of the New 
Testament exhibits in many points a departu];e from the 
idiom of the Attic Greek. The great question, which so 
long agitated the learned philologists of Europe, would 
seem at present to be put entirely to rest. In defining 
words, those significations are placed first which accord with 
Greek usage. Then follow those significations which depart 
from Greek usage, and which are to be illustrated from the 
Greek of the Septuagint, as compared with the Hebrew, or 
depend solely on the usus loquendi of the New Testament 
writers."^^ " Classical use, both in Greek and Latin, is not 
only, in this study, sometimes unavailable, but may even 
mislead. The sacred use, and the classical, are 
OFTEN VERY DiFFERENT.^^^* "The language of the New 
Testament is the later Greek, as spoken by foreigners of 
the Hebrew stock, and applied by them to subjects on which 
it had never been applied by native Greeks. After the dis- 
use of the ancient Hebrew in Palestine, and the irruption 
of the western conquerors, the Jews adopted the Greek 

13 Prof. Eobinson's Pref. to Lexicon of the New Testament. 

14 Dr. George Campbell, whom the Baptists regard as one of the most 
learned scholars of modern times. 



THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 41 



language from necessity — partly as a conquered people, 
and partly from intercourse of life and commerce, in colo- 
nies, and cities, founded like Alexandria, and others, wliich 
were peopled with throngs of the Jews. It was therefore 
the spoken language of ordinary life which they learned, 
not the classic style of books which have come down to us. 
But they spoke it as foreigners, whose native tongue was 
the later Aramean; and it therefore could not fail to acquire 
from their lips a strong Semitic character and coloring. 
When to this we add, that they spoke in Grreek on the 
things of the true God, and the relations of mankind to 
Jehovah and to a Savior — subjects on which no native 
G-reek had ever applied his beautiful language — ^it will be 
obvious, that an appeal merely to classic Greek and its 
philology will not suffice for the interpretation of the New 
Testament. The Jewish-Greek must be studied almost as 
an independent dialect. ^^ ^ 

This is involved in the nature of things. When the pro- 
found and peculiar truths of the gospel are revealed to any 
people, the old words of their language must receive a new 
import and denote new ideas. Says David Brainerd, 
"There are no words in the Indian language to answer to 
our English words. Lord, Savior, salvation, sinner, justice, 
condemnation, faith, adoption, glory, with scores of like im- 
portance.^' In this way the word haptizo is to be explained, 
not in the sense in which it may be used in the Greek 
classics, but as it is applied to a religious ordinance, signi- 
fying a spiritual washing or purification, without the least 
reference to the mode in which the ordinance is administered. 
The classic signification is not to be confounded with the 
generic, sacred use of the term; and, in this latter sense, 
Christ and his apostles are competent authorities, since they 

^^ Prof. Edward Robinson. 
4* 



42 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



have as good authority to explain their own meaning as 
Zenophon, Aristotle, or any other classic author has to ex- 
plain his meaning. The Holy GtHOST gives the evangelical 
meaning to haptizo, to wash, to purify, as we shall see, and 
this is the highest authority in the universe. The word 
haptizOy in the wide range of its classic use, never has a 
religious signification; but it has this signification in its 
scriptural use; therefore it is to be taken in a different 
sense in its scriptural use, from what it had in its classic 
use. In its classic use, it does not always mean to immerse 
— it never did denote an invariable mode in its classic use 
— and hence cannot denote an invariable mode in its scrip- 
tural use.*^ But admitting — which we do not — that in its 
original, primitive, classic use, it invariably meant to im- 
merse, even then the meaning of the word in its scriptural 
sense is to be derived from the new evidence, the new facts, 
and new circumstances connected with its scriptural use. 
For such are the laws of mental exercise, that even ad- 
mitting, which we do not, that haptizo in its classic use in- 
variably means to immerse, yet from the effect of immersion, 
the mind, in the ritual application of the word, might fix 
upon the effect of immersion alone, and so give the meaning 
of thorough cleansing or purifying, without any reference 
whatever to any specific mode as essential. All sound phi- 
lologists know what influence the imagination, the laws of 
association, taste, education, habits, manners, customs, and 
new circumstances, have upon modifying the original, primi- 
tive meaning of a word, till the original idea is lost, and a 
secondary sense substituted. 

^6 See Editor of Calmet's Dictionary, some eighty examples, taken in 
part from ancient fathers, and classic writers, and from the Bible, in all 
of which the word implies less than immersion, and in most of which, it 
implies sprinkling, moistening, pouring, or staining; and therefore 
ancient Greek and the Bible do not sustain the exclusiveness of the 
Baptists. 



THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 43 



In reply to the assumption of the Baptists, that immersion 
MS the only legitimate and authorized meaning of haptizo 
we offer the following considerations. 

First. BdTzriOj hapto, the root or primitive of ^aTcri^w, hap- 
tizo, does not invariably nor necessarily imply immersion. 
But derivatives lose some of the force of their primitives; 
hence, even if bapto invariably and necessarily means im- 
mersey,\t follows that haptizo may mean something less than 
immerse. But hapto, the primitive, does not invariably 
mean immerse; therefore, d fortiori, baptizo does not in- 
variably mean immerse. 

The first step in this branch of the argument is to show 
that hapto, the primitive, does not invariably and necessarily 
mean to immerse. The more learned Baptists now admit 
that hapto means to stain, to dip partially, to wet slightly, 
to dye, &c., without any reference to any specific and in- 
variable mode. ^^ And he was clothed with a vesture dipped, 
(fe^aniisvov,^ baptized or stained in blood.'' Rev. xix. 13. A 
chieftain's garments are not stained in battle by immersing 
them in blood, but by sprinkling or aspersion. ^^Who is 
this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from 
Bozra? Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy 
garments like him that treadeth the winepress ? I have trod- 
den the wine press alone; and of the people there was none 
with me; for I will tread them in anger, and trample them 
in my fury, and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my 
garments, and I will stain aU my raiment,' ' Isa. Ixiii. 1-3 
To the same effect is Matt. xxvi. 23 : " He that dippeth 
(6 e/ijSaipaq') his hand with me in the dish,^' &c.; which 
cannot imply a total immersion, as any one acquainted with 
the mode of eating in the East will at once perceive. And 
so Dives prayed to Abraham to send Lazarus that he might 
dip — ^uTZTi- — his finger, &c. In these three examples from 



44 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



the Scriptures, and they will suffice, nothing like the idea 
of entire immersion is implied. 

Classical authors maintain the same position. In the 
Battle of the Frogs and Mice, a mouse is represented as dye- 
ing ore coloring — e^aizTero — the lake with his blood. "To 
suppose that there is here any extravagant allusion to the literal 
immersion or dipping of a lake, is a monstrous perversion of 
taste. The lake is said to be dyed, not to be dipped, or 
poured, or sprinkled. There is in the word no reference to 
mode. Had Baptists intrenched themselves here, they 
would have saved themselves much useless toil, and much 
false criticism, without straining to the impeachment of 
their candor or their taste. What a monstrous paradox in 
rhetoric is the figure of the dipping of a lake in the blood of 
a mouse ! Yet Dr. Grale supposes that the lake was dipped 
by hyperbole. The literal sense he says is, the lake was 
dipped in hlood. Never was there such a figure. The lake 
is not said to be dipped in hlood, but to be dyed with hlood.'* 
Carson and Cox, on Baptism, p. 67. Again, " Hippocrates 
employs it to denote dyeing, by dropping the dyeing liquid 
on the thing dyed — ^aTzrerai. This surely is not dyeing by 
dipping.'' Ibid. p. 60. Again: "In Arian's Expedition of 
Alexander the Great — ^Nearchus relates that the Indians 
dye — ^ar^TovTat — their beards.' It will not be contended 
that they dyed their beards by immersion." Ibid. 61. Dr. 
Carson also observes, "From signifying to dip, it came to 
signify dye hy dipping — and afterward from dyeing hy dip- 
ping, it came to denote dyeing in any manner.^' P. 60. 
And he adds : " Use is always superior to etymology as a 
witness on this subject. A word may come to enlarge its 
'gleaning so as to lose sight of its origin. This fact must be 
obvious to every smatterer in philology.^' P. 62. " Use," 
he continues, " is the sole arbiter of language. BaTzru) sig- 
nifies to dye hy SPRINKLING, as properly as by dipping, 



THE MODE or BAPTISM. 45 



thougli originally it was confined to the latter/^ P. 63. No 
stronger or more candid defence of our argument could be 
expected of the most accomplished paedobaptist. All that 
we claim is here candidly conceded. " This is a fact, and 
were it even against me, I could not but admit it." P. 64. 
What fact? that hapto denotes ^^ dyeing in any manner." 
To proceed farther is useless. 

Admitting that hapto invariably and necessarily means 
immerse, according to the laws of etymology, haptizo, one 
of its derivatives, must lose some of the force of its primitive. 
But we have shown that hapto has not this invariable mean- 
ing, but is a term of such latitude that it implies ani/ mode 
or manner, according to its use in various authors. Conse- 
quently, haptizo, its derivative, cannot be restricted to one 
meaning : like its primitive, it implies any mode or manner. 

Secondly. But we pretend not to settle this as a question 
wholly of etymology and probabilities. We have positive 
facts and evidence in the Scriptures, that haptizo is used in 
the sense of wash or purify, which we shall now adduce. 

First. The ordinary meaning of the word, as it is used in 
the Scriptures, with reference to the influences of the Holy 
Spirit, means to cleanse, to purify, to wash. The cleansing 
operation of the Holy Spirit in conversion, is set forth under 
the idea of a baptism : this indeed all can understand, as the 
plain and rational meaning of the word in its gospel sense. 

Secondly. A dispute arose among the disciples of John 
concerning baptism as practised by Jesus and John. " Rabbi, 
he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest 
witness, hehold the same haptizeth, and all men come to him," ^^ 
The question in dispute here was "about purifying," (v. 25,) 
and hence, with regard to it, the disciples of John referred 
to Jesus as purifying by haptizing, while they thought that 

" John iii. 26. 



46 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



Jolm. and not Jesus, was invested with authority to ad- 
minister hoptism as the rite of purification. The terms 
employed are, xad^apiffiioo, and jSaTzrc^sc, and the only rational 
inference, from all the facts in the case, is, that they are 
synonymous in this instance; and if the force of the word, 
in its religious application, be determined in this capital 
instance to be purify ^ then it has this force in all cases of a 
religious nature, and especially when employed with reference 
to formal initiation into the church. As xa^aipw, or the 
later form, xad^api^u), in Jewish services, as well as heathen 
rites, meant to purify from the pollution of guilt by expiatory 
sacrifices, without any reference to any invariable mode, we 
may conclude that, in this instance at least, ^a-riZio loses all 
idea of mode, and means to purify : and so in all cases of a 
religious nature. 

Thirdly. It was the expectation of the Jews that their 
Messiah should purify. "Who may abide the day of his 
coming ? and who shall stand when he appeareth ? for he is 
like a refiner^ s fire, and like/ii?Ze/s soap. And he shall sit 
as a refiner and purifier of silver : and he shall purify the 
sons of Levi, and purge them as gold, &c.''^^ While the 
whole Jewish nation is expecting the great Purifier, sud- 
denly it is rumored throughout Judea that he is come, and 
forthwith priests and Levites go out, and inquire of John, 
"Who art thou?'^ And when he denies that he is the Mes- 
siah, then the question is very naturally proposed to him, 
^'Whj haptizeth thou then, if thou be not the Christ.'' ^^ 
The expectation of the Jews, and the evangelical sense we 
give to haptizo, entirely harmonize. But if we suppose hap- 
tizo here means immerse, it is impossible to reconcile such 
a sense with the prevailing expectations, and the prophetic 
references of the Old Testament to Christ as a Purifier. 

18 Mai. iii. 2-3. ^^ John i. 25. 



THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 47 



Fourthly. The outward and inward baptism, specifically 
referred to by John, can be harmonized only by giving hap- 
tizo the evangelical sense of wash or purify. "I indeed 
baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with the 
Holy Grhost.^' That is, in a ceremonial sense, I indeed 
cleanse you with water, but he shall purify you spiritually 
with the Holy Grhost. To say that John had any reference 
to immersion in the latter case is absurd, and hence we may 
infer, that John did not immerse in the former case. Grive 
to haptizo the sense of purify, and at once the prophecy of 
Malachi, the baptism of John, and the baptism of the Holy 
Grhost harmonize in the most exact and rational manner. 

Fifthly. The reference made in Heb. ix. 10, to Mosaic 
purifications, requires that we give the meaning wash, purify, 
to haptizo, " Which stood only in meats and drinks and 
divers washings^' — ^aTzzcff/xolq. A comparison is made by the 
Apostle between the legal typical purifications of the Jewish 
dispensation, and the real, moral purifications of the Spirit 
provided by Christ under the Christian dispensation. The 
bapiismois here referred to, such as gifts, sacrifices, the blood 
of sprinkling, the ashes of a heifer, all relate to persons and 
not to things. But throughout the scope of the Mosaic 
ritual, not once is immersion enjoined upon persons. The 

original Hebrew word 7ptOj that means to immerse, is not 
used in a single instance where washing or purifying is en- 
joined upon persons, but in every such case the word T^H"), 
which means to wash or purify, is used. In a word, the 
whole Mosaic ritual, in its application to personal ablution, 
might be fulfilled to the letter, without immersion in a single 
instance. That Paul, in the text above, refers to the Mo- 
saic ritual, in its application to persons, and not to things, 
may be proved by reference, not only to the Jewish cere- 
monial law, but to what he says above : ^^ which was a figure 



48 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



for the time tlien present, in whicli were offered both gifts 
and -sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service 
perfect, as pertaining to the conscience." (v. 9.) Thus the 
term haptismois, in this scripture, must mean purifications^ 
without the remotest reference to immersion. 

Sixthly. Several other instances: — The baptism of St. 
Paul: "Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins."^*^ 
The purification of the heart is here typified by baptism. 
The bloody baptism of Christ : It is evident Christ could not 
have been immersed in his own blood, and the only rational 
meaning that can be given to haptizo in this case, is a sacra- 
ficial purification, and this was done by the outpouring or 
shedding of his own blood. The baptism of the church at 
Kome : " Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized 
into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death ? Therefore 
we are buried with him by baptism into death." 2* And 
Col. ii. 12 : "Buried with him by baptism into death," &c. 
In these passages, nothing can be proved respecting mode 
from haptizo; and with regard to the word '^hury,^' it would 
have been used had sprinkling or any other mode been 
specifically mentioned. The burial here referred to is 
spiritual, and hence the baptism here mentioned is spiritual. 
And what is spiritual baptism ? It is the destruction of sin 
and the purification of the heart — it embraces those bap- 
tismal influences of the Spirit that give a spiritual force to 
the will, a spiritual clearness to the understanding, a spiri- 
tual ardor to the affections, a spiritual energy to the power 
of faith, and an exquisite delicacy to the conscience, by 
which we become dead to the world, and alive to God. 
How then can a person baptized consent to sin ? This view 
of these texts perfectly harmonizes with the drift of the 
apostle's argument. If mode, in an}'' sense, be implied in 

20 Acts xxii. 16. 21 Rom. vi. 3-4. 



THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 49 



these Scriptures, it must be analogous to that mode which 
the Spirit adopts, and that is sprinkling or pouring, as the 
Scriptures invariably teach; immersion is out of the question. 

It may be added, thatfthe dogma of baptismal regenera- 
tion originated in connecting the idea of purification with 
haptizo. In the early times of Christianity, the church 
began to sink the form of baptism into the spirit of it, and 
to regard that as a condition which was only a sign and 
seal of regeneration. It would have been impossible ever to 
confound the outward with the inward baptism, if baptism 
was not symbolical of spiritual purification — impossible 
indeed ever to invest mere immersion with the idea of spiri- 
tual birth. The Eomanists, Puseyites, and Campbellites 
seize upon the same passages of Scripture, in defence of their 
pernicious errors, that many of the early Fathers adduced 
in defence of baptismal regeneration; and the Campbellites 
themselves, therefore, when they attempt to prove the notion 
of immersion from the Fathers, at the same time prove from 
their own witnesses, that haptizo means to purify. 

From these considerations, the inference is easy : external 
baptism, the outward sign, should represent the inward 
cleansing, and hence water is the element used in the ad- 
ministration of external baptism. Likewise the mode of 
external baptism should correspond as nearly as possible to 
the mode of spiritual baptism adopted by the Holy Spirit. 
The baptism of the Holy Spirit was a real, indisputable 
baptism, visible to the senses, seen by John the Baptist, 
and the multitudes at the Jordan, by the apostles, and by 
Peter and the brethren in the instance of CorneliuB. And 
what is the meaning of the word in these instances. Let 
John the Baptist, who used the word, answer : " He shall 
baptize you with the Holy Grhost.^^-^ q^j, LQr(j himself, 

22 Matt. iii. 11 ; Mark i. 8; Luke iii. 16. 
5 



50 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



who was the subject of baptism^ shall also answer: "Ye 
shall be baptized with the Holy Grhost not many days 
hence/' ^ That we may fix the sense of the word baptize 
as to mode, in the above instances, consider the popular 
meaning of synonymous words, which the sacred writers, 
under the inspiration of the Holy Grhost, employed, in 
reference to the same events. "Behold, I send the promise 
of my Father upon you : but tarry you in the city of Jeru- 
salem until ye be endued with power from on high.^'^ 
Here our Lord, by using a word synonymous with baptize, 
sets forth the idea of spiritual baptism, altogether inconsistent 
with immersion or plunging. "And suddenly there came 
from heaven, and appeared unto them cloven tongues like 
as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.'' 25 Here Luke 
describes the manner in which the apostles were baptized 
according to the promise of Jesus. And so Peter also bears 
witness : " The Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the 
beginning." ^^ Peter again: "God gave them the Holy 
Ghost, even as he did unto us.'' ^'' The prophet Joel bears 
testimony respecting the mode of the baptism of the apostles 
on the day of Pentecost. " And it shall come to pass in the 
last days, saith God, I will pour out of my spirit," &g.^ 
Take other instances : " I saw the Spirit descending from 
heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him."^^ "Jesus 
having received of the Father the promise of the Holy 
Ghost, hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear." -° 
"That they might receive the Holy Ghost; for as yet he 
was FALLEN UPON none of them."^^ "God anointed 
Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost." ^a "The Holy 
Ghost FELL ON all." 33 "The Holy Ghost sent down from 



23 Acts i. 5. 24 Luke xxir. 49. 25 ^cts ii. 2, 3. 26 Acts xi. 15. 

^ Acts XV. 8. 23 Acts ii. 16-17. 29 john i. 32. so Acts ii. 33. 

31 Acts viii. 15, 16. 32 Acts x. 38. 33 Acts x. 44. 



THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 61 



HeaYen." ^^ ^' Sealed with tlie Holy Spirit of promise.'^ ^^ 
In all these instances, we have the words, descending ; 
coming; giving ; falling ; shedding ; pouring ; sitting; abid- 
ing; anointing; sealing; — invested with the very same 
signification of haptize when reference is had to the mode of 
spiritual baptism. Not in one instance does the synonymous 
word support the idea of immersion or plunging as the mode 
of baptism by the Holy Grhost; and therefore the word hop- 
tizo cannot mean immersion when it is used with reference 
to the baptism of the Holy Ghost; and hence so far from 
being restricted to the sense of immersion, as the Baptists 
affirm, it does not refer to immersion at all. In one instance, 
the prediction of Christ is, ^^Ye shall be baptized with the 
]Ioly Grhost;^^ and, "the Holy Grhost was poured out upon 
them," is the fulfilment. In another instance, "I willpour 
out of my Spirit,'' is the prediction of Joel; and "they were 
&l\ filed with the Holy Ghost," is the fulfilment. Not 
in one single instance in the Scriptures, we believe, does the 
synonymous word support the doctrine of immersion. Our 
conclusion then is, that as the evangelical mode of spiritual 
baptism is not immersion, immersion is not the evangelical 
sense of haptizo: But as the inward spiritual baptism is set 
forth under the ideas of descending, falling, pouring, shed- 
ding, the outward formal baptism by water should corre- 
spond as nearly as possible to the mode of baptism by the 
Holy Ghost. The manner of baptism adopted by the Holy 
Ghost is the highest standard for the mode of outward bap- 
tism. If the Holy Ghost, as the divine administrator, bap- 
tize-by pouring or shedding his cleansing influences upon 
the heart, surely external baptism by pouring or sprinkling 
must be most proper, since it is in exact conformity to the 
inward spiritual baptism. As we have divine authority, 

»* 1 Peter i. 12. » Eph. i. 13. 



52 THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 



hotli in word and action, for pouring and sprinkling, as the 
meaning of haptizo, we have the highest authority for adopt- 
ing sprinkling and ponring as the modes in administering 
external baptism. The resemblance is set forth in a striking 
manner, both by John and our Lord. ^'I indeed (says 
John) baptize you with water, but he (Christ) shall baptize 
you loitli the Holy Grhost.^^^^ ^^ John baptized with water, 
but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Grhost.^'^7 Here no 
difference respecting the mode is even alluded to ; and as it 
has been determined that spiritual baptism is administered 
by pouring, shedding, &c., the mode of outward baptism is 
so easily inferred, that it is not even mentioned. The Holy 
Grhost shall be poured upon you, in the same manner as John 
poured, shed, let fall, water upon you — and the manner of 
John's baptism is at once determined. The Holy Grhost 
was poured upon the apostles : in the same manner, we con- 
clude, that the apostles, in baptizing, poured, shed, let fall 
water upon the converts, and the mode of Christian baptism 
is at once determined. There is nothing in this conclusion 
offensive to taste, contrary to fact, repulsive to decency, 
opposed to analogy, or in violation of the plainest rules of 
language. 

Secondly. Consider some instances from the Scriptures 
of the application of the word haptize in reference to loater. 

We are informed that Nebuchadnezzar was ''baptized with 
the dew of heaven.^' ^^ In the thirty-third verse it is said, the 
body of the Babylonian monarch '' was wet with the dew of 
heaven.'^ In the Septuagint we have the original G-reek: 
ccTTo TYjq dpoffov, TOD ovpavoo TO aa>!xa ahrov e^dfrj, apo tes 
drosou, ton ouranou to soma autou ehaphe ; and in the Vul- 
gate we have, et rore coeli conspergater — sprinkled with the 

86 Matt. iii. 11. 37 Acts i. 5. 

38 Compare Dan. iv. 23, 25, 33. 



THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 53 



dew of heaven. In this instance, the person of the royal 
subject was baptized by the descending, the falling of the 
dew in the night. The king was certainly not immersed 
in the dew, for two reasons : the condensation of the vapors 
of the night never could have produced dew of a sufficient 
depth to immerse him; and in the second place, had he been 
immersed, he would have been destroyed. 

Again : " I would not that ye be ignorant how that all 
our fathers were under the cload, and all passed through the 
sea; and were all baptized — l^ar-iaw^zo, ehaptisanto — unto 
Moses in the cloud, and in the sea.'' ^^ Here the Israelites 
pass '^ under the cloud," ^Hhrough the sea,^' ^' on dry land," 
and consequently, the baptismal element descended from the 
cloud above — GrOD himself being the administrator. Im- 
mersion on dry land is an absolute impossibility, and hence, 
in this instance at least, haptizo does not mean immerse. 

Once more : "And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled 
that he (Christ) had not first washed — t^a-riGdr^ — ehaptisthe 
— ^before dinner." *° "And when they came from the 
market, except they wash — ^oKxiGuiyTai — haptisontai — they 
eat not." Mark vii. 4. The meaning of the term here is a 
ceremonial purification, a mere refining upon the Mosaic 
ordinances concerning ablution, and has no reference to 
physical cleanliness. This is the intrinsic and specific 
meaning here, and about this there can be no controversy. 
The second point is — what was the mode of this ceremonial 
customary pui'ification among the Pharisees and Jews gene- 
rally ? We maintain that pouring was the mode employed. 
" Here is Elisha, the son of Shaphat, who poured water on 
the hands of Elijah." ^^ The same custom prevailed in the 
days of Christ, and continues still in the East, for customs 



39 1 Cor. X. 1, 2. 40 Luke xi. 38. 

41 2 Kings iii. 11. 
5* 



54 THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 



seldom or never change in the East. ^^The table being 
removed/' says Pitts, ^^ before they rise from the ground on 
which they sit, a slave or servant, who stands attending on 
them with a cup of water to give them drink, steps into the 
middle with a basin, or copper pot of water, something like 
a coffee-pot, and a little soap, and lets the water run upon 
their hands one after another as they sit. Such service, it 
appears, Elisha performed for Elijah.^' D'Ohsson observes, 
"The Mussulman is generally seated on the edge of a sofa 
with a pewter or copper vessel, lined with tin, placed before 
him upon a round piece of red cloth, to prevent the carpet 
or mat from being wet : a servant, kneeling on the ground, 
pours out the water for his master] another holds the cloth 
destined for the purification. The person who purifies him- 
self b&gins by baring the arms as far as the elbow. As he 
washes his hands, mouth, nostrils, face, arms, &c., he re- 
peats the proper prayers. It is probable that Mohammed 
followed on this subject the book of Leviticus." . "The 
Osmanlis are remarkable for their attention to cleanliness. 
When they wash, the water is poured from a vase upon the 
hands over a wide basin — they never make use of a basin 
or a tub to wash in, as is the practice elsewhere. It is a 
common observation among the Osmanlis, that cleanliness 
corresponds with the purity and integrity of mind." (Report 
of Mr. Oscanyan's Lectures on Constantinople, contained in 
Boston Recorder, Jan. 4, 1839.) Certainly our Lord was 
not expected to immerse or plunge himself before dinner; 
he simply declined the customary compliment of the Jews, 
which was paid to the guest by pouring water on the feet, 
and hands also. Jesus did most graciously accept this 
attention on another occasion. "And he turned to the 
woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I 
entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my 
feet, but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped 



THE teODE OF BAPTISM. 55 



them with the hairs of her head." ^ Dr. Alexander Carson 
replies, that " people of distinction might have water poured 
on their hands by servants, but it is not likely that this was 
the common practice of the body of the people in any nation.'' *^ 
Very well, then the water was poured upon the hands in 
the present case, for Christ was regarded as a person of 
^^distinction," and was the guest of a distinguished person, 
namely, ^'a, Pharisee." So that Dr. Carson himself con- 
cedes that hajptizo, in this case, means to poiir^ as well as 
to wash, and consequently, he contributes in deciding the 
mode as well as the meaning of haptism. We return to the 
Old Testament: "As they who bare the ark were come 
unto Jordan, and the feet of the priests that bare the ark 
were dipped k^dcp-qaavy ebapTiesan — in the hrim of the 
water." "** — elq [lepoq rob uSaroq, eis meros tou hudatos. The 
feet of the priests but touched the hrim, the edge of the 
water, when the water recoiled and convolved "in a heap," 
as the priests stood firm on drj/ ground, in the midst of 
Jordan.^ 

Once more: "As for the living bird, he shall take it, 
and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and 
shall dip — I3d(psc, hapsei — them and the living bird in the 
blood of the bird," &c.*^ No bird used in the Jewish sacri- 
fices could yield blood enough to render the immersion of the 
living bird, the cedar wood, the scarlet, and the hyssop in it 
possible, and hence, in this case, the word baptize cannot 
mean to immerse or overwhelm. Again, in the New Testa- 
ment, " Send Lazarus, that he may dip — ^d<p7j, bapse — the 

42 Luke vii. 44. 

^ Carson on Baptism, p. 15, Dr. Carson is an Irish Baptist minister, 
and was once a poedobaptist, but having embraced the opposite views, 
he wrote a work on baptism, which the Baptists hold in the highest esti- 
mation. 

*4 Josh. iii. 15. « Josh. iii. 17. ^ Lev. xiv. 6. 



56 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



tip of his finger/' &c.*7 Of coursej the whole finger was not 
to he immersed — only the tip of the finger. '^ He to whom 
I shall give the sop when I have dipped — ^acpaq, hapsas — 
it." ^^ The meaning here cannot he, that the sop was wholly 
immersed. " He was clothed in a vesture dipped — ^e^a/jt/iivov, 
hehammenon — in blood." ^^ The idea cannot be tolerated, 
that the garment of Christ was immersed in blood. " The 
washing — ^a-Kziffjiohq, haptismous — of cups, and pots, and 
brazen vessels, and tables." *° ^'The foundation of the 
doctrine of baptisms" ^^ — jSaTrzLfffxaJv, haptismon. "Which 
stood in meats and drinks and divers washings" ^^ — ^^a-rttr/xoZ?, 
baptismois. Now it is evident, that various modes of wash- 
ing are here intended. It may be admitted, that the cups 
were immersed, though not necessarily so, in order to be 
washed. But were the "pots and brazen vessels," and the 
cumbersome "tables," fifteen or twenty feet long by four 
feet broad, and about four feet high, also immersed ? Be- 
sides, the doctrine of baptisms is mentioned in the plural 
number. And any one but partially acquainted with the 
ancient regulations and ceremonial ablutions of the Jewish 
dispensation, knows that the greater part of them had 
nothing to do with immersion. 

Again, in the Old Testament, "And Elisha sent a messen- 
ger unto him, saying, Gro and wash in Jordan seven times." ^ 
This he did, verse 14th. "Then went he down, and dipped 
— ^jSartziffaTo, ebaptisato — himself seven times in Jordan, 
according to the saying of the man of Grod." Here haptizo 
clearly means to wash; and it is by no means clear that 
Naaman subjected himself to a total immersion. "But 
Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said. Behold I 
thought, he would surely come unto me, and stand, and call 

47 Luke xvi. 24. -^^ j^i^n xiii. 26. ^^ Rev. xix. 13. ^o Mark vii. 4. 
51 Heb. vi. 2. 52 Heb. ix. 10. ^2 Kings v. 10. 



THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 57 



on the name of the Lord his Grod, and strike Ms hand over 
the place, and recover the leper/^ ^* Well assured are we 
of one thing, that the word here means to wash, which is 
the meaning contended for in this discussion. To meet this 
difficulty, Dr. Carson lays down the following canon: ^^In 
certain situations two words, or even several words, may 
with equal propriety fill the same place, though they are all 
essentially different in their signification." ^^ In the above 
example, therefore, the meaning of Xoucu, louo, to wash, may 
he expressed by haptizo; and consequently, haptizo means 
to wash. Dr. Carson's canon is fatal to his criticisms — the 
result, no doubt, of the classical research of many years. 
He unequivocally allowsf, that haptizo and louo may, "in 
certain situations, with equal propriety, fill the same place," 
and hence they may mean what other words mean, "though 
they are essentially different in their significations." In 
this single sentence, Dr. Carson saves others the pains of 
correcting his criticisms^ himself offsetting them all at a 
single stroke, by adopting a canon which would give haptizo 
the meaning to wash, if it had not inherently this meaning. 
That I have fairly interpreted and applied the canon of 
Dr. Carson, take his own words. Eeferring to the case of 
Naaman, he says, "This passage is a complete illustration 
of my canon. The two words Xobio and ^a-KriZ<o are here 
used interchangeably, yet they are not of the same significa- 
tion." *s In the name of common sense, how can words be 
used interchangeably that have not in some respect the 
same signification ? If words used interchangeably have not 
the same signification, then Naaman disobeyed the prophet, 
and the sacred history of the transaction is false ; but if words 
used interchangeably have the same meaning, then haptizo 



^ 2 Kings V. 11. 55 Carson and Cox on Baptism, p. 81. 

^ Ibid. p. 87. 



58 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



and louo in this case mean the same thing, and therefore 
haptizo means to wash. Dr. Carson again, on same page : 
"The words haptizo and louo have their own peculiar mean- 
ings even here, as well as anywhere else, without the smallest 
confusion. To baptize is not to wash; but to baptize in a 
rive?', or any pure water ^ implies washing , and may be used 
for it in certain situations. If Naaman dipped himself in 
Jordan he was washed.'^ That is, haptizo^ implies wasAm^, 
and may be used for it in certain cases. Of course then 
haptizo may mean to wash in a gospel sense. Could the 
most explicit declarations of all the paedobaptist churches 
be clearer than this admission of Dr. Carson ? Placing our- 
selves then by the side of Dr. Carson, with him, and Elisha, 
we determine the meaning of haptizo to be to wash. We 
make one more remark. 

Dr. Carson has given a latitude to the meaning of these 
words, hapto and haptizo, by his canon, which no paedobap- 
tist has ever dared to assume. And this is the more re- 
markable, when it is considered that he had spent so much 
labor to prove, that one of these words has a univocal mean- 
ing, and the other but two meanings. On the principle of 
his canon, "circumstances" and "situations'' alone can de- 
termine the number of meanings inherent in words, and 
consequently, language has no fixed laws of interpretation. 
In vain does Dr. Carson, in his subsequent conclu-sions re- 
specting the abstract, primary, and invariable meaning of 
these words, cry out, "decisive" "irresistible," &c. He 
has forestalled his future progress. This ordinance, so well 
loaded and directed, sweeps away his preceding labors, and 
when ruin is complete in that direction, he wheels it around, 
and keeps up a perpetual and destructive fire throughout his 
succeeding march. What does it avail him now to marshal 
Hippocrates, Polybius, Dio, Porphyry, Diodorus Siculus, 
Plutarch, Lucian, Strabo, Josephus, and many other ancient 



THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 59 



autliorities, since his canon, levelled with fatal precision, 
pours its thunder into the bosom of his beloved and venerated 
antiquity? Besides, these very authorities, in some cases, 
give, with Elisha, the meaning to wash to haptizo, as Dr. 
Carson himself shall prove. " There are instances," says he, 
"in which the word is translated by some wash, and in 
which the general meaning may he thus well enough ex- 
pressed in a free version." ^'' And yet in the very next sen- 
tence, in violation of all consistency, he absolutely cancels 
this admission. " Still however," he continues, " the word, 
even in such situations, does not express the idea of wash- 
ing, and has its own peculiar meaning of mode^ the idea of 
washing being only a consequence from the dipping^" If 
the word does not express the idea of washing, how then is 
it " translated by some'' to wash ? If it does not express 
the idea of washing, how can ^^wash be well enough ex- 
pressed in a free version ?'' Dr. Carson saw this difficulty; 
and so we are not surprised to see him, probably before the 
paper is dry before him, write down a recantation of his last 
inconsistency. Hear him : " Now as I am pledged to show 
that the word does not mean to loash in any manner^' &c. 
In any manner? Why, just above, he allows, that "wash- 
ing is a consequence from the dipping." Is not dipping a 
"manner" ov mode of washing! "Pledged" to contradict 
and refute himself? On another point, already examined, 
I will just here refer to Dr. Carson as evidence. That hap- 
tizo, when referring to the operation of the Holy Grhost on 
the heart, means to loash, take the following testimony: 
" The Spirit is said to be poured out, not because there is 
any actual pouring, which is represented by pouring out 
water in baptism, but Jfrom the resemblance between the effects 
of the Holy Spirit and those of water. '^ ^^ Then haptizo, 

^ Ibid p. 98. 58 Ibid. p. 165. 



60 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



when referring to the influences of the Holy Ghost, means 
to wash or purify j which is all we contend for at present, 
and which Dr. Carson admits — although he had declared 
that haptizo does '^not mean to wash in any manner." At 
the same time however, he endeavors to destroy the resem- 
blance between the mode of the application of the Spirits 
influences, and the mode of the use of water. ^'Baptism, 
whatever be the mode, cannot represent either the manner 
of conveying the Spirit or his operations on the soul. 
Though there is a real communication of the Spirit, there is 
no real or literal baptism." ^^ These are mere assumptions, 
made without a particle of proof adduced to sustain them. 
But Dr. Carson shall again refute his own position. "But 
though the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a figurative bap- 
tism; yet as respects the transactions on the day of Pente- 
cost, there was a real baptism in the emblems of the Spirit." ^° 
Indeed ! and what was the mode of this real emblematical 
baptism? Dr. Carson says, in the next sentence, "the dis- 
ciples were ^mmersec? into the Holy Spirit by the abundance 
of his gifts, and they were literally covered with wind and 
fii-e." Immersed into the Holy Spirit! Not at all — ^but 
granted. And then they were immersed by pouring^ for 
pouring was the mode of baptism adopted by the Spirit on 
the day of Pentecost. ^^ Just one remark here : — ^Is it not 
probable, that the apostles who had first been baptized by 
the Holy Grhost by pouring, adopted pouring as the mode 
of external baptism in the case of the three thousand, who, 

6^ Ibid. p. 164. 60 Ibid. p. 168. 

61 Dr. Gale himself, in his "reflections on Wall," admits that "the word 
haptizo, perhaps, does not so necessarily express the action of putting 
under water, as in general a thing being in that condition, no matter Tioio 
it comes so, whether it is put into the water, or the water comes over it." 
Wall, vol. iii. 122. Consequently, as the apostles, according to Dr. Car- 
son, were baptized by pourincj on the day of Pentecost, pouring is a 
proper "action" of baptism. 



THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 61 



the same day believed and were initiated into the Christian 
church? These emblems of the Spirit were sensible and 
external; and as they were miraculous, concomitant circum- 
stances of the baptism of the Holy Grhost, the idea of pour- 
ing is suggested as appropriate and consistent in the adminis- 
tration of the initiating sacrament of the Christian dispensa- 
tion. Dr. Carson, in explaining the meaning of the word 
when it refers to the operations of the Holy Spirit, discards 
all idea of mode, and considers it only as expressing the 
purifying effects of the influences of the Holy Spirit — and 
yet for more than 150 pages, he endeavors to convince his 
readers, that haptizo expresses mode only, and means to dipy 
and only to dip. But when it refers to the agency of the 
Holy Spirit, he tells you, it has no reference to the mode of 
influence, but to the results of influence. Now if haptizo 
has but one meaning, and that meaning is to dip — and if 
haptizo, in the example before us, had no reference to mode, 
but to the " effects," — then it means nothing when it refers 
to the agency of the Holy Spirit. But if spiritual baptism 
does not imply mode, neither does external baptism; but 
haptizo, when it refers to spiritual baptism, as in the case 
above, always suggests the mode, and therefore the analogous 
mode of external baptism should be adopted. 

As the critical inquiries of Dr. Carson have great weight 
with the Baptists, we shall further consider them. They 
completely refute his own position. The sum of his con- 
elusions may be stated in his own words: — "1st. Banro), 
except when it signifies to dye, denotes mode, and nothing 
but mode. 2d. BaTcrcj and ^anrc^o) are exactly the same 
in meaning, as to increase or diminution of the action. That 
the one is more or less than the other, as to mode or fre- 
quency, is a groundless conceit. 3d. There is one import- 
ant difference. BaTzrcu is never used to denote the ordinance 

of baptism, and (^oKn^io never signifies to dye. The primi- 

6 



62 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



tive word has two meanings, the primary to dip, the second- 
ary to dye. But the derivative is formed to modify the 
primary alone. 4th. Bapto means also to dye. And 
although this meaning arose from the mode of dyeing by 
dipping, yet the word has come by appropriation to denote 
di^Qvugwithout reference to mode. As this point is of material 
consequence in this controversy, I shall establish it by 
examples that put it beyond question. Nothing in the his- 
tory of the words is more common, than to enlarge or 
diminish their signification. Ideas not originally included 
are often affixed, while others drop ideas originally inserted. 
In this way, /?a-ra>, from signifying mere mode, came to be 
applied to a certain operation usually performed in that 
mode. From signifying to dip, it came to signify dyeing by 
dipping, because this was the way in which things were 
usually dyed. And afterward, from dyeing by dipping, it 
came to denote dyeing in any manner. A like process may 
be shown in the history of a thousand other words." This 
statement of his views clearly, we think, overthrows his own 
theory. Upon the same ground, on which he extends or 
diminishes the meaning of hapto, he can likewise extend the 
Cleaning of haptizo, and a thousand other words. For as 
the idea of mode is secondary and non-essential when hapto 
is used in the sense of dyeing, so the idea of mode is second- 
ary and non-essential when haptizo, the derivative of hapto, 
is applied to the sacrament of baptism. As hapto, from 
dyeing by dipping comes to denote dyeing in any manner, 
so haptizo from baptizing by dipping, comes to denote hap- 
tizing IN ANY MANNER. ^2 This is conclusive. 

^ The judgment of Professor Stuart, as a biblical critic, is of the 
highest reputation in the United States. He says of Dr. Carson, "He 
lays down some very adventurous positions, in respect to one meaning, 
and one only, of words, which, as it seems to me, every lexicon on earth 
contradicts, and must always contradict." On Mode of Baptism, p. 100. 



THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 63 



Thirdly. We advance one step farther in this investiga- 
tion. The word baptism, as it is used in Scripture, cannot 
be restricted to one invariable meaning; it means to dip, 
inibuej drench, soak, overwhelm, pour, sprinkle, to wash. If 
it could be restricted to any one of these meanings, then it 
might be used synonymously with all the rest. ^^Send 
Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water" — 
plunge the tip of his finger ! " Judas, who plunges his hand 
with me in the dish." ^'The Word of Grod was clothed in a 
vesture plunged in blood !" ^^ Our fathers were baptized in 
the cloud, and in the sea" — plunged in the sea, when they 
were on ^^ dry land !" and in the cloud, when they were 
under the cloud ! Pharaoh and all his hosts were over- 
whelmed in the sea, but yet they were not haptized. We 
shall now show by many examples, that the word baptism, 
as it is used in the Scriptures, has many different significa- 
tions as to mode. 

First. In the sense of dip, or partial immersion: "Ye 
shall dip a bunch of hyssop in the blood." ^^ "The priest 
shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle it." ^* " The 
priest shall dip his finger J' ^* " Let Asher dip his foot in 
oil." ^^ " The feet of the priests were dipped in the hrim 
of the water." ^^ " Jonathan dipped the end of his rod in 
a honeycomb." ^^ " Thy foot may be dipped in blood, and 
the tongue of the dogs in the same." ^^ In all these in- 
stances, nothing more can be intended than a partial im- 
mersion.'^^ 



This decision of Professor Stuart, Dr. Carson himself admits, furthei 
on, p. 44. 

63 Ex. xii. 22. 64 Lev. iv. 6. 65 Lev. iv. 17. 66 Deut. xxxiii. 24. 

67 Josh. iii. 15. 68 i gam. xiv. 27. 69 pg. i^viii. 23. 

™ Dr. Gale admits, that " the word haptizo does not necessarily imply 
a TOTAL IMMERSION or dipping the whole thing spoken of ALL over, 
WHICH I READILY ALLOW." (WaU, vol. iii. 147.) 



64 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



Secondly. In the sense of overwhelming. " Can you 
be baptized witli the baptism that I am baptized with V' ''^ — 
overwhelmed. ''• I have a baptism to be baptized with/^^a — 
overwhelmed. 

Thirdly. In the sense of staining. 

"Dyed attire upon their heads."^^ 

Fourthly. In the sense of pouring. 

To what has already been said, the following may be 
added: "And Judith washed herself in (or at) a fountain 
by the camp. ''7* That is, more literally, "she went out 
and washed herself at the spring of water that was in the 
camp.'' What, plunged herself in a spring that supplied 
an army of two hundred thousand men with water ? Would 
she have plunged herself in the open fountain, in the sight 
of the whole army ? Certainly not, and the conclusion is, 
that she performed this ablution by sprinkling or pouring. 

Fifthly. In the sense of sprinkling. 

"Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers wash- 
ingsj dia<p6poi(; ^oKTKTixdiqj dia^horois haptismois. Of these 
divers kinds of baptism the apostle selects two, namely, bap- 
tism by blood, and baptism by water ; and of these he also 
selects three rites, and all these rites are sprinklings. 
Such was the direction for the great day of expiation. 
"And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and 
sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy-seat eastward : 
and before the mercy-seat shall he sprinkle of the blood 
with his finger seven times. Then shall he kill the goat of 
the sin-ofiering that is for the people, and bring his blood 
within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the 
blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy-seat, 
and before the mercy-seat." ^s ^^ go the apostle observes. 



'1 Mark x. 38. '2 Luke xii. 50. « Ezek. xxiii. 15. 

w Judith xii. 7. '^ Lev. xvi. 14, 15. 



THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 65 



'^ If the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an 
heifer, sprinkling the unclean/' &g.'^^ 

There is no mode to which the baptism of blood can be 
referred but to the sprinkling of Aaron on. the great day of 
expiation. From all these instances, severally and collec- 
tively, it is evident that the word baptism cannot be restricted 
exclusively to immersion or plunging ; so far from if, they 
furnish no evidence whatever that immersion was practised 
in ritual observances, or in the administration of the gospel 
ordinance of baptism,. 

Fourthly. Had it been the original design of the sacred 
writers to employ a word invariably and necessarily imply- 
ing entire immersion, the copiousness of the Greek language 
furnished many such terms, which they would have used in 
preference to baptizo — especially if they invested the mode 
of baptism with the importance with which the Baptists so 
strenuously maintain it is invested. And yet the sacred 
writers do not, in a single instance, employ one of these 
terms when they refer to Christian baptism : they invariably 
use baptizo and baptisma. While we have but one single 
Anglo-Saxon term, plunge, to express unequivocally an en- 
tire immersion, the Grreek language has at least eight, per- 
haps more, that express this idea, such as Tzovrt^u), xaraTrovrt^io, 
^ud't^to, xara^u-&c^u), xaraduvco, xara^aTzzi^u), efi^aTZTiZo), and 
dbnru) : terms indisputably precise and exact. Henry Ste- 
phens defines pontizo, " to plunge into the sea." Katapon- 
tizo is most frequently used, and signifies to plunge down 

■^^ Heb. ix. 13. When the Levites, it may be added, were set apart to 
tlieir ofl&ce, it was done by "sprinkling water of purifying upon them/* 
Ac. Num. viii. 7. And so a leper was cleansed by sprinJding. Lev. 
xiv. 7. Thus, among the Jews sprinkling was the mode or emblem of 
purification. But Christ and his apostles were Jews, and were familiar 
with all the services of the Jewish church, and hence they never could 
have formed any idea from analogy of purification by immersion in 
water or blood, under the Christian dispensation. 

6* 



66 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



into the sea, to plunge under." Hedericus : " to plunge 
down into the sea, to plunge under. '^ Donnegan : "to sink 
in the sea.'^ Grove : " to plunge or sink in the sea." 
Stephens de&nes buthizo, "to cast into a gulf, the deep, 
or the sea; to plunge down. Katabuthizo signifies the same, 
and is more commonly used." Passor : " to plunge down, 
to cast into the deep." Hedericus: "to plunge; from 
huthos, a whirlpool, a bottomless pit, or the deep. Kata- 
huthizOj to cast into a gulf, or the deep, to plunge down." 
Donnegan : " to sink, submerge. KatabuthizOj to sub- 
merge ; to sink down quite to the bottom." 

Stephens defines hatadunOj "to enter within or into a 
more interior place; to enter into a gulf or the deep." 
Hedericus : " to go into a more interior place, to enter into 
a gulf or the deep, to plunge down, to plunge under." 
Donnegan : "to dip under ; to immerse ; to sink — -properly j 
to cause the sinking of a thing, as of a ship ; to plunge ; to 
dive ; to go under ; to go down/' &c. Grrove : " to go 
down; descend into; to sink; immerge; plunge," &c. 
And so of the other terms. All these terms are used in the 
Scriptures with the same exact and unequivocal meaning. 
" But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid, and 
beginning to sink, (Jcatapontizesihai,^ he cried, saying, Lord, 
save me." Matt. xiv. 30. "Whoso shall ofi'end one of these 
little ones, &c., and that he were drowned (hatapontisthe) in 
the depths of the sea." Matt, xviii. 6. "And they came, 
and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink'^ — 
huthizesthai. Luke v. 7. "But they that will be rich fall 
into a temptation, and a snare, &c., which drown (huthizousi) 
men in destruction and persecution." 1 Tim. vi. 9. And 
so of other scriptures. To proceed farther would be use- 
less labor. 

Here are words in the classical and sacred writings which 
exactly and unequivocally convey the Baptist idea of mode; 



THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 67 



but yetj amid all this profusion of Greek terms, they rejec 
them allj and confine themselves wholly to hajptizo and hap 
tisma when they speak of Christian baptism. And yet the 
Baptists boldly affirm " that there is not another term in 
the Greek language, whether spoken by pagans or apostles, 
that can properly express baptizing in the sense subscribed 
to by the Baptists, if haptizo be rejected!'^ The sacred 
writers were not ignorant of these terms, and hence would 
have employed them with reference to the Christian ordi- 
nance of baptism, had they entertained the idea of it which 
the Baptists do. But they do not use these terms, and 
the inference is inevitable, that the sacred writers did not 
originally consider immersion as essential to baptism, or as 
obligatory upon the church in all ages. When they speak 
of baptism, they do not call it immersion, pouring, or sprin- 
kling — ^they do not refer to any specific mode as invariably 
necessary. They simply and emphatically employ the term 
baptism, and from this we may conclude that no other term 
in the Greek language would have expressed the true nature 
and meaning of the evangelical ordinance of baptism. Other 
Greek words refer unequivocally to the manner of using 
water, without specifying the purpose intended. Baptizo 
and its cognates, in an evangelical sense, refer to the specific 
purpose intended in the use of water, without specifying the 
manner of using it. Thus the translators of the Bible were 
wise in retaining the original Greek word baptism, only 
making a slight change in the letters to conform to the idiom 
of the English language. Had they ventured to make a 
translation conformable to the sentiments of the Baptists of 
the present day, we should have the following ridiculous 
statements in the Bible. For ^^ baptism of repentance," the 
^'plunging of repentance'/' instead of "I have a baptism to 
be baptized with," ^^ I have a plunging to be plunged with}/' 
instead of ^^I indeed baptize you with water, but he shall 



68 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



baptize you witli the Holy Ghost, and with fire/' ^^ I indeed 
immerse you with water, hut lie shall immerse you with the 
Holy Ghost and with jire?^ They would have made an 
equally absurd and ridiculous translation had they substi- 
tuted sprinkling or pouring for baptism ; and paedobaptists, 
if they restricted the meaning of baptism to these terms, 
would be exposed to the criticism now so fatal to the ex- 
clusiveness of the Baptists. "We shall conclude this branch 
of the argument with the following observations. 

(1.) No specific mode is positively enjoined by the sacred 
writers as invariable and necessary. 

(2.) In every translation of the Bible into a foreign lan- 
guage, such a change only should be made in the words 
haptizo and baptism, as will conform them to the idiom of 
the language into which they are translated. All the efforts 
of the Baptists to alter the translation of these words in our 
English Bible are therefore opposed to the essential nature 
of Christian baptism, the Christian religion, and the philoso- 
phy of language. 

(3.) It is a remarkable fact in the history of baptism, 
that in process of time, amid the corruptions of the church, 
hataduno was unwarrantably substituted for baptizo. We 
are indebted to Professor Stuart for the following researches. 
^'The Grreek words hataduo and hatadusis were employed 
as expressive of baptizing and baptism; and these words 
mean going down into the water, or immerging. So in the 
following examples. Chrysostom, Hom. 40, 1 Cor. 1 : ^^To 
be baptized and to submerge, (hatadusisthai,) then to emerge, 
(anaduein,) is a symbol of descent into the grave, and of 
ascent from it.'' Basil De Spiritu, c. 15: ^^By three im- 
mersions (en trisi katadusesi) and by the like number of 
invocations, the great mystery of baptism is completed." 
Damascus, Orthodox Fides, 4, 10: ^'Baptism is a type of 
the death of Christ; for by three immersions (hataduseon) 



THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 69 



baptism signifies/^ &c. So the Apostolic Constitutions, 
probably written in tbe fourth century, Lib. iii. ch. 17 : 
"Immersion (hatadusis) denotes dying with Christ : emersion 
(anadusis) a resurrection with Christ.'' Chrysostom, ch. 3, 
Johannis: "We, as in the sepulchre, immersing (Jcata- 
duonton) our heads in the water, the old man is buried, and 
sinking down (kataduskato) the whole is concealed at once : 
then as we emerge, the new man again rises." . Cyril, of 
Jerusalem, uses this language : " Plunge them (kataduete) 
down thrice into the water, and raise them up again." 
Now if these Fathers regarded immersion as the precise and 
unequivocal meaning of haptizo, why did they not employ 
haptizoj and not kataduno ? If, as the Baptists strenuously 
maintain, haptizo has but one meaning, immersion, and these 
Fathers so believed, there was no necessity for substituting 
the word kataduno. But they did use kataduno as a sub- 
stitute. Therefore, they did not believe haptizo has but one 
invariable meaning, viz. immersion. But if they believed 
kataduno to be synonymous with haptizo, they not only 
acted inconsistently, but were not sustained by the sacred 
writers, for they never once use kataduno with reference to 
baptism. In either case, the Baptists can derive no ad- 
vantage from their example. 

Fifthly. I invite the reader's attention to another con- 
sideration. The most learned lexicographers, both ancient 
and modern, unanimously give the word a wider significa- 
tion than that of immersion. Among whom may be men- 
tioned Stephanus, Scapula, Passor, Suidas, Hedericus, Cou- 
lon, Schrevelius, Parkhurst, Ainsworth, Schleusner, Grove, 
and Donnegan. And therefore Dr. Carson, after assuming 
that haptizo "always signifies to dip," admits that he has 
"all the lexicographers against him."'';, ^^d yet^ notwith- 

T' Carson on Baptism, p. 79. 



70 THE MODE or BAPTISM. 



standing this unanimous testimony of lexicographers, and 
the admission of Dr. Carson, the Baptists generally, from 
the pulpit, the press, and at the j&reside, affirm that all 
learned lexicographers, ancient and modern, give immersion 
as the exclusive meaning of haptizo. I make the following 
extract from Chapin's Primitive Church, pp. 43, 44 : — "As 
it is agreed on all hands, that the native Glreeks are the best 
authority for the meaning of their own language, we shall 
refer the question to them. We give therefore the defini- 
tions of these words, (bapto and haptizo,^ only from the native 
Greek lexicographers. The oldest Grreek lexicographer is 
Hesychius, who lived in the fourth century of the Christian 
era. He gives only the root hapto, and the only meaning 
he gives the word is antleo, to draw or pump water." Nexl 
in order comes Suidas, a native Greek, who wrote in the 
tenth century. He gives only the derivative haptizo, and 
defines it by pluno, to wash. Passing over the intermediate 
Greek lexicographers, we come down to the present century, 
at the beginning of which we find Gases, a learned Greek, 
who with great labour and pains compiled a large and valua- 
ble lexicon of the ancient Greek language. His book, in 
three volumes quarto, is a work deservedly held in high 
estimation by all, and is generally used by the native Greeks. 
The following are his definitions of hapto and haptizo : — 
Bapto. — ^Brecho, to wet, moisten, hedew. 

Pluno, to tvash. 

Gemizo, to fill. 

Buthizo, to dip. 

Antleo, to draw, to pump water, 
Baptizo. — Brecho, to loet, moisten, hedew. 

Pluno, to WASH. 

Leno, to wash, to hatJie. 

Antleo, to draw, to pump water. 
Sixthly. The most learned divines and commentators of 



THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 71 



the church give a wider meaning to haptizo than immersion. 
From these are selected Piscator, Zanchius, Alstedius, Mas- 
tricht, ParaeuS; Wickliffe, Leigh, Lightfoot, Calvin, Beza, 
Whitsius, Hammond, Wall, Danaeus, Spanhemius, Bishop 
Patrick, Calmet, Faber, Doddridge, Stockius, Poole, Wesley, 
Clarke, Watson, Bloomfield, Stuart — in a word, the whole 
psedobaptist church. ''« Dr. Samuel Miller, late Professor of 
Ecclesiastical History, &c. at Princeton, observes, ^^I am 
well persuaded that the venerable Dr. Owen, certainly one 
of the greatest and best men of the day in which he lived, 
is borne out by truth when he pronounces "that no one 
instance can be given in Scripture, in which the word which 
we render baptize, does necessarily signify to dip or plunge. 
In every case the word admits of a different sense; and it is 
really imposing on public credulity to insist that it always 

"^^ The Baptists strenuously maintain that the exclusive meaning of 
haptizo is immerse. And yet from the commencement of Greek litera- 
ture to its close — from the time of Homer, 1000 years before Christ, to 
the time of Constantinus Harmenopulus, 1380 years after Christ, a period 
of more than 2000 years, including "aU the orators, poets, historians, 
philosophers, physicians, mathematicians, geographers, rhetoricians, and 
philologists of Greece, all the Greek Fathers of the Christian church, and 
the Byzantine writers of the Middle Ages" — during all this long period, 
no controversy existed about the import of this word — though occasions 
often arose when the attention of the early Fathers might have been 
directed to the subject. Why then is the controversy about the mean- 
ing of haptizo so recent ? Simply because till recently no sect arose to 
limit it to a single signification — indeed, no one dared to do this so long 
as the Greek continued to be the living, spoken language. " Immersion 
was never considered essential to baptism till the rise of the Anabaptists 
in Germany, in the sixteenth century." Dr. Pond, p. 43. The lexicons 
and vocabularies of Suidas, Zonoras, Hesychius, and others — the numerous 
treatises on baptism, written in Greek, and frequent allusions to it in the 
writings of the Fathers — the commentaries which were written on both 
the Old Testament and the New, in which constant allusions are made 
to baptism, — contain not one word in favor of the ground taken by the 
Baptists, but in very many instances directly oppose and contradict it. 



72 THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 



does, and necessarily must signify immersion." ''^ Dr. 
D wight observes, that "the body of learned critics and lexi- 
cographers declare that the original meaning of the word 
haptizOy and its root hwptOj is to tingey staiuj dye^ or color ; 
and that when it means immersion, it is only in a secondary 
and occasional sense, derived from the fact that such things 
as are dyed, stained, or colored, are often immersed for this 
end. The primary meaning of these terms is cleansing; 
the effect, not the mode of washing; the mode is usually 
referred to incidentally , whenever these words are mentioned; 
and although capable of denoting any mode of washing, 
whether by affusion, sprinkling, or immersion, yet, as in 
many instances, cannot, without obvious impropriety, be 
made to signify immersion, and in others cannot signify it 
at all."^° Mr. Richard Watson observes, that, "if the ad- 
vocates of immersion could prove what they have not been 
able to do, that plunging is the primary meaning of the 
term, they would gain nothing, since, in Scripture it is 
notoriously used to exjpress OTHER APPLICATIONS OF WATER. 
Whatever, therefore, the primary meaning of the verb ^to 
baptize' may be, is a question of no importance on the one 
side or the other. Leaving the mode of administering bap- 
tism, as a religious rite, out of the question, it is used, 
generally, at least in the New Testament, not to express 
immersion in water, but for the act of pouring or sprin- 
kling it ; and that baptism, when spoken of as a religious 
rite, is to be administered by immersion, no satisfactory in- 
stance can be adduced. In fact, if the true mode of baptism 
be immersion only, then must we wholly give up the bap- 
tism of the Holy Spirit, which in any other mode than 
pouring out was never administered." ^^ The passages in 

'9 Miller on Presbyterianism and Baptism, p. 66. 

80 Theology, vol. iv., pp. 345, 346. 

81 Theological Institutes, vol. ii., pp. 650, 651. 



THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 73 



the New Testament, in which the word haptize occurS; are 
just ninety in number. Of these sixty -five determine just 
nothing as to mode ; sixteen favor the mode of sprinkling 
or POURING, — tico of these render it morally certain that the 
mode was sprinkling or pouring; and of the remaining 

nine, NOT ONE OR ALL TOGETHER DEMONSTRATE THAT THE 
MODE WAS IMMERSION.^2 

This closes the consideration we give haptizoj as it stands 
disconnected from its appendages in the Bible. What then 
is the use of these appendages? Simply to express the 
manner of approach to, or departure from, or chxumstances 
at the water. This analysis presents the whole subject in 
its true light: the proper meanings of the words are not 
confounded. It is impossible rationally and philologically 
to maintain the doctrine of express and exclusive immersion 
upon the appendages, or the original word haptizo, or upon 
both conjointly. From this whole consideration of the 
original word (SaTzri^co, the ground we take is this : — The 
meaning of the word, in its evangelical sense, is to wash, and 
admits of any external mode which the subject may, in his 
own judgment, infer is the best representation or emblem 

^ Indeed, admit that the general signification of (3anri^o} is to immerse, 
and that the consequent obligation of baptism is imposed upon ail be- 
lievers to be wholly immersed in water, then, in celebrating the Holy 
Eucharist, the other sacrament, all believers are bound, from the general 
meaning of the term employed, to eat a full meal whenever they cele- 
brate this divine ordinance. The literal meaning of the word Seinvov, 
deipnon, (1 Cor. xi. 20,) is a feast or supper. But the apostle severely 
reproves the Corinthians for so regarding the meaning of the term in 
their celebration of the sacrament, and advises all that are hungry to eat 
at home ; evidently teaching that a rigorous interpretation of the term 
might lead to a perversion of the sacrament from its real and original 
design. Upon the strict construction of the Baptists, in the case of the 
Eucharist, the censure of the apostle would be applicable to them ; for 
certainly a similar error is committed in their interpretation of the word 
haptizo. 

7 



THE MODE or BAPTISM. 



of the inward baptism of the Holy Grhost. The word ex- 
presses, in the first place, the idea of internal, spiritual wash- 
ing; and in the second place, it admits the adoption of any 
mode that shadows forth the baptism of the Holy Ghost. 
If some think sprinkling is sufficient to shadow forth the 
inward washing, then sprinkling is a valid mode to them. 
If others think pouring answers just as well, they are not to 
be condemned. And if others think immersion answers 
better, why, there is no objection, unless they are exclusive 
in their judgment. In every case, however, the spiritual 
meaning of baptism is the only important and vital con- 
sideration. ^'Then there arose a question between some of 
John's disciples and the Jews about purification, (xa{^apiaiiovy 
katharismon.') And they came to John, and said unto him, 
Rabbi, he who was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou 
barest witness, the same haptizeth, — jSaTzri^si, haptizeij — and 
all men come to him." ^^ The subject of dispute here does 
not seem to be the mode of baptism, but the signification of 
it ; and it is this alone in a spiritual sense, after all, that is 
indispensable in the administration of baptism. 

One word more. Mode in itself can express nothing of a 
moral quality. The baptism of water is not called a purifi- 
cation in consideration of any mode that may be adopted, 
but because water is the element employed as a religious 
emblem, just as the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a spiritual 
and real purification, because the Holy Spirit is employed 
in the case. So water be employed in baptism, and the 
idea of purification be set forth, no matter what is the mode 
that is employed: the idea of purification or cleansing is 
suggested by the element used, and not by the mode em- 
ployed. Just as bread and wine set forth the broken body 



^ John iii. 25, 26. It is clear, from the synonymous meanings of 
katharismon and baptizei, that haptizo, in this instance, means to wash. 



THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 75 



and shed blood of CHristj no matter what may be the mode 
of receiving these emblems; so the emblematical character 
of baptism is in the water, and not in the mode of its appli- 
cation to the subject. Until it can be clearly demonstrated 
— and it cannot be — that some great vital truth is con- 
nected with immersion, it cannot be enjoined upon any as 
the only valid mode of baptism. The reason why sprin- 
kling and pouring are preferable as modes of baptism is, 
because they are more convenient, and analogous to the 
modes employed in the ceremonial services of the Jewish 
church, and to the modes adopted by the Holy Grhost in 
spiritual baptism ; and we feel safe in adopting such high 
standards. 

We shall conclude this chapter with the following 
inferences. 

First. Bapto and hajptizo have various intrinsic meanings, 
and immersion is but one of these meanings, — though im- 
mersion is not once used in the Scriptures as the meaning 
of haptizo. 

Secondly. The mode implied, in any given case, is to be 
determined by the circumstances of the case : — ^knowing the 
circumstances, we can determine the mode. The circum- 
stances of no case recorded in the Scriptures justify even the 
idea of immersion, much less the exclusiveness of the Bap- 
tists on the subject. 

Thirdly. The primary evangelical meaning of haptizo is 
to wash, to purifi/, in a sacramental sense : it also implies 
sacramental obligation on the part of Grod and man. Mode, 
then, is non-essential. But knowing the circumstances, in 
any contested case, we may determine the mode employed 
in that case. But for the controversy in the premises, there 
would have been no necessity to refer to the circumstances, 
and yet an impartial examination, in every case, excludes 
the idea of immersion. 



76 THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 



Fourtlily. Had the mode of the ordinance been absolutely 
essential, the sacred writers ■would have used a word or 
words of unequivocal meaning as to mode. This they have 
not done. 

Fifthly. It has been seen, that we cannot determine 
either the intrinsic meaning of the terms used, nor the 
mode employed, in any given case, by reference to our 
dictionary and grammar; but from the context, occasion, 
times, manners, customs, habits, taste, general sentiments, 
ideas, and peculiar usages of the people, — in a word, all the 
circumstances that stand connected with the specific use of 
the words, and the transaction which they rationally imply; 
and, in every case, from these considerations, immersion is 
excluded. 

Sixthly. That no moral quality or vital truth of Chris- 
tianity is connected with mere mode. 

Seventhly. It is immaterial what mode be employed, so 
the sacramental nature of baptism is set forth. 

Eighthly. And lastly, sprinkling and pouring are prefera- 
ble to immersion, since they are more convenient, and are 
sustained by analogies in the Scriptures of the highest 
authority. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE ORIGINAL GREEK PREPOSITIONS. 

3. As a third source of evidence respecting the mode 
of baptism, we shall consider the original Greek prepo- 
sitions of the New Testament. It will be found, in this 
examination, that they furnish no ground whatever for the 
doctrine of immersion; indeed, it will be found, in the 
application of the rules we shall lay down, that immersion 



ORIGINAL GREEK PREPOSITIONS. 77 



did not occur in a single instance in which they are employed 
in connection with baptism. The rules are the following : 

(1.) When voluntary motion into a place is signified, eit; 
— eis — is used before both the verb and noun or pronoun. 

(2.) When voluntary motion out of a place is signified, 
Ix or k^ — eh or ex — ^is used before both the verb and noun or 
pronoun. 

(3.) When motion to or liuto a place is signified, dq is 
used only before the noun, without the verb and preposition. 

(4.) When motion upward or downward from a place, or 
to a place, is expressed, a preposition is used both in com- 
position with the verb, and before the noun or pronoun; but 
in this case the prepositions are not the same, nor of similar 
import. 

First. When voluntary motion into a place is signified, 
eis is used before both the verb and noun or pronoun. 

Take a few examples. " Enter into thy closet" — El'^eMs 
e:V TO rafisTov. Matt. vi. 6. " Ye shall in no case enter into 
the kingdom of heaven'^ — etffiXd^rj re £:'<? rijv ^acdsiav. Matt. 
V. 20. ^' And lead us not into temptation'^ — Kat /li] daev- 
iyxi^q ijlj.a.q dq izetpaffiibv. Matt. vi. 13. "Not every one 
that sayeth unto me. Lord, Lord, shall enter into the king- 
dom of heaven" — elashuaszai elq ttjv iSacrddav. "And when 
Jesus was entered into Capernaum" — ElaeXd-ovzt de autw dq 
KaTzepvaoh/i. " Send us into the swine, that we may enter 
into them. And the unclean spirits — entered into the 
swine" — ha elq aorohq elaikd-ojiiev — dar/Xd^ov dq rohq ^oipouq. 
" Neither go into the town" — 3lT]di elq riju xco/jltjv eiq iX^rjq. 
Mark viii. 26. " And when he was come into the house" — ^ 
Kdt slffeX.^ovra ahrov elq utxov. Mark ix. 28. " And if thy 
hand offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter 
into life maimed,"- &c. — xaXo'j (rot ^ffzi xuXXov eiq rijv C^^v 
£t(Ts?3s'cv. Mark ix. 43. And so the 47th verse : eiffsX^eTv 
dq rijv ^aaiXday rod Oeoo. But we will not detain the reader 



78 THE MODE or BAPTISM. 



longer with quotations, but direct his attention to the follow- 
ing passages, all of which sustain this first rule in. the 
strongest manner: — Matt. x. 5, 11, 12; xii. 4, 29; xv. 11, 
17; xviii. 3, 8, 9; xix. 17, 23, 24; xxi. 10, 12; xxiv. 
38 ; XXV. 10, 21, 23 ; xxvi. 41 ; xxvii. 53. Mark i. 21, 45 ; 
ii. 1, 26; iii. 1. 27; vi. 56; vii. 17, 18, 19, 24; x. 23, 
24,25; xi. 11, 15; xiv. 38 ; xvi. 5. Lukei. 9, 40; iv. 
16, 38; vi. 4, 6; vii. 1, 36, 44; viii. 33, 41, 51; ix. 4, 
34, 52 ; X. 5, 8, 10, 38 ; xi. 4 ; xvii. 12, 27 ; xviii. 24, 25 ; 
xix. 45 ; xxii. 3, 10, 11, 40, 46, 54 ; xxiv. 26. John iii. 4, 
6; iv. 38; vi. 22; x. 1; xviii. 1, 15, 28,33; xix. 9; xx. 
6. Acts iii. 2, 3, 8 ; v. 21 ; ix. 6, 8, 17 ; x. 24 ; xi. 8, 12, 
20; xiii. 14; xiv. 1, 14, 20; xvi. 15, 40; xvii. 20; xviii. 
19; xix. 8, 30; xxi. 8, 26, 28, 29, 37; xxiii. 16, 33; xxv. 
23. Romans v. 12. 1 Tim. vi. 7. Heb. i. 6 ; iii. 11 ; iv. 1, 
3, 4, 5, 10, 11 ; ix. 12, 24, 25 ; x. 5, 19 ; xiii. 11. James 
V. 4. 2 Pet. i. 11. 2 John 7. Rev. xv. 8 ; xxii. 14. These 
references will be sufficient, and we will only add, that 
elq before both the verb and noun is found in the New 
Testament 145 times — surely enough to establish the first 
member of the first rule. But we go farther, and adduce 
passages in which elq occurs before both the verb and the 
pronoun. 

" There is nothing from without a man, that entering into 
him can defile him,'^ &c. — da7zopeo6[ievov elg aorov. Mark 
vii. 15. ''Go your way into the village over against you, 
and as soon as ye be entered into it,'' &c. — eiffnopeuo/xevot 
£L<; aorijv. Mark xi. 2. And so Mark ix. 25; Luke 
viii. 30, 32; xviii. 17; xxi. 21. John xiii. 27. Acts x. 3; 
xvii. 2 ; xxviii. 30. Heb. iv. 6. Rev. iii. 20 ; xi. 11 ; 
xxi. 27. Many other instances might be given, but these 
will answer. And • so in the Septuagint, the same gram- 
matical rule is scrupulously observed, as for instance, in 
Gen. vii. 7-16; xii. 11, 14, 15; xix. 3. Ex. xii. 23; xiv 



ORIGINAL GREEK PREPOSITIONS. 79 



23. Josh. ii. 1, 3 ; iii. 15. The example in Ex. xiv. 22, is 
worthy of special attention : ^^ And the children of Israel 
went into the midst of the sea'' — eiselthon — eis meson tes 
thalasses. 

Secondly. When voluntary motion out of a place is signi- 
fied, ix or i^ — e7c or ex — is used, before both the verb and 
noun or pronoun. Ex or If is used before the verb and 
noun in the following examples : — " And thou Bethlehem, 
in the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of 
Judah : for out of thee shall come a Grovernor," &c. — tx aou 
yap k^eXebaerat rjyouiisvoq. ]\I^tt. ii. 6. "Thou hypocrite, 
first cast the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou 
see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye" — 
ex^aXe — kx too 6(pd-aXp.oo aoo. Matt. vii. 5. " There met him 
two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs" — ix — 
k^epx6[xsvoi. Matt. viii. 28. "A good man, out o/the good 
treasure of the heart, bringeth forth good things'^ — kx — 
kx^dXXei. Matt. xii. 35. " That which cometh out o/the 
mouth, this defileth a man" — kx-Kopeo6[x£vov kx rod (jroparoq. 
Matt. XV. 11. " And came up out the graves after his 
resurrection" — k^eXd^ovreq kx rm [xvyipeiiov. Matt, xxvii. 53. 
And so Matt. xiii. 52 ; xv. 18, 19 ; xxi. 17, 39. Mark i. 
29; V. 2, 8; vi. 54; vii. 20, 21, 26, 29, 31 ; xi. 19 ; xii. 
8 ; xiii. 1. Luke iv. 22, 29 ; xx. 15. Johniv. 30 ; viii. 42, 
59 ; X. 39 ; xiii. 3 ; xv. 19. Acts vii. 3, 4, 10, 40, 58 ; xii. 
11, 17 ; xiii. 42 ; xvii. 33 ; xix. 16 ; xxii. 18 ; xxvi. 17 ; 
xxvii. 30 ; xxviii. 3. 1 Cor. v. 2, 10. 2 Cor. vi. 17 ; xi. 33. 
Gal. i. 4; iii. 13. Heb. iii. 16; vii. 5; viii. 9. 1 Pet. ii. 
9. 3 John 10. Rev. i. 16; iii. 5; iv. 5 ; ix. 3, 17, 18 ; xi. 
5 ; xiv. 15, 17, 18, 20 ; xv. 6 ; xix. 5, 15, 21 ; xxi. 1 
And so in a multitude of other instances. One hundred and 
seventeen examples have been examined, in all of which the 
rule holds good. Ex, before the verb and the pronoun, 
occurs in the following passages: — Mark i. 25, 26; v. 30; 



80 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



ix. 25. Luke iv. 35. Acts xiii. 17. 1 Cor. v. 13. 1 John 
ii. 19. Rev. -xviii. 4. 

Thirdly. When motion to or unto a place is signifiea, 
dc, is used only before the noun or pronoun, without the 
verb and preposition. ^^ Peter therefore went forth, and 
that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre'^ — ijpxoi^To 
£'.<; TO [jy7)p.e~Lo\). John xx. 3. "Wide is the gate that lead- 
eth to destruction" — elq rr^v d.r,wXstav. Matt. vii. 13. And 
so in many other scriptures. Where eis stands before the 
verb without the noun, it generally, if not always, means m, 
as may be found by reference to Matt. viii. 8 ; ix. 25 ; xii. 
45; xxii. 11, 12; xxiii. 13, 14; xxvi. 58. In several 
instances where eis occurs before the noun, without the verb 
and preposition, it is translated into; but even in these 
instances the action is involuntary or constrained. Uis, 
standing alone, never means ^?^to, though connected with 
the verb or noun, but before the verb it invariably means in. 

Ek before the verb, generally, if not always, means out ; 
and before the noun or pronoun, it means of or from. In 
connection only, therefore, does ex or eJc mean out of, or out 
froniy as the case may be. 

Fourthly. When motion upioard, or downward, from a 
place, or to a place, is expressed, a preposition is used both 
in composition with the verb, and before the noun : but in 
this case the prepositions are not the same, nor of similar 
import. In expressing motion downward to a place, kata 
is generally used in composition with the verb, and eis 
before the noun : and in expressing motion upward from a 
place, ana is commonly used in composition with the verb, 
and ex or apo before the noun. "Now Peter and John 
ivent up — anehainon — together into — eis — the temple," &c. 
Acts iii. 1. " And Joseph also went up — anehe — from — apo 
— G-alilee." Luke ii. 4. Here the same verb and the same 
preposition are used as in Matt. iii. 16 to express the motion 



ORIGINAL GREEK PREPOSITIONS. 81 



of Jesus in going up from the river Jordan. " And he was 
seen many days of them which came up with him — sunana- 
hasin—from — apo — Galilee."' Acts xiii. 31. "After three 
days he (Festus) ascended — anehe — from — apo — Cesarea." 
Acts XXV. 1. And so in the Septuagint, this mle is observed 
with astonishing exactitude. Glen. ii. 6; xvii. 22, are worthy 
of special attention. Gren. ii. 6 : "there went up — anehainen 
— a mist from — eh — the earth :'" here the same verb and 
preposition are used that are employed in Acts viii. 89 to 
express the motion of Philip and the eunuch in coming up 
from the water. G-en. xvii. 22 : "and God went up — anehe 
— from — apo — Abraham :'" here the same verb and preposi- 
tion are used that are employed to express the motion of 
Jesus in going up from Jordan. Other examples of motion 
downward to a place may be found in Luke x. 30; xviii. 14. 
John ii. 12. Acts vii. 15; xiv. 25; xvi. 8; and xxv. 6. 

Such are the grammatical rules according to which the 
Greek Testament is to be explained, and there are perhaps 
no rules in any language of more general application than 
these. A careful examination of the Greek Testament, 
from first to last, will result in the conviction of their as- 
tonishing universality. It is true, as to all general rules, 
there are some exceptions to these rules ; but they are all 
unimportant and irrelevant, having no application whatever 
to a single specific case of the ORDINANCE of baptism re- 
corded in the Scriptures. If there were a single exception 
to the application of these general rules in the sacred record 
of Christian baptism, and this exception might be employed 
in favor of immersion in that single case, the exception 
should be admitted ; hut there is not a single exception in 
the premises — not one. The general rules only are applica- 
ble with the most convincing exactitude in evert/ case in 
which the mode of administering the sacrament of ChrisfHn 
baptism has been made a matter of controversy. 



82 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



We shall now apply these rules in the examination of the 
celebrated cases in which these prepositions are used in con- 
nection with Christian baptism. 

^^And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their 
sins" — ^/5a7rrc'Covro h tcD 'lopdd'^rj. Matt. iii. 6. Had the 
verb eix^arizi^cD — emhaptizo — been used in this case, then, 
according to the first rule, the doctrine of immersion might 
be sustained from the force of the Greek prepositions ; but 
the preposition stands alone before the noun, without con- 
nection with the verb, and the conclusion is, that immersion 
is not intended. " And Jesus, when he was baptized, went 
up straightway out of the water" — KdX (SuTzzcffiMq 6 ^Ir^aouq 
d'^ijSr] sbd'bq aizb too udaroc;. Matt. iii. 16. Here the prepo- 
sition employed is apo, which is ordinarily rendered in the 
New Testament from. Ex, which before the verb, means 
out of, in this instance is not used, either in composition 
with the verb, or before the noun : it is not employed at all 
in this case. Had e^ipy^oiio.t been employed instead of 
ava^aivo), and h instead of arro, the conclusion would be clear 
that Christ was immersed. The true translation, therefore, 
of apo, in this case, should be from, and not '^ out of.^' 
" And they went down both into the water" — xari^eaav — el<; 
TO odcop. Acts viii. 38. " And when they were come up out 
of the water" — avi^riaav Ix rod udaroq. v. 39. Eis only is 
used as a governing preposition, in the first instance, dis- 
connected from the verb, and consequently means to or unto ; 
and ek, in the second instance, stands alone, disconnected 
fi'om the verb, and consequently means from, and not out 
of Had ecffip/o/iat been used, in the first instance, instead 
of xaralSat'^oj ', and e^ip/op.at been employed, in the second 
instance, instead of avaiSaivoj, then, according to the rules 
we have laid down, immersion might be sustained in the 
case of the baptism of the eunuch ; but as elq only is used, 
in the fiirst instance, and h. only in the second, the conclusion 



ORIGINAL GREEK PREPOSITIONS. 83 



is irresistible that immersion was not practised in this case. 
As baptism in the case of the Jews, and of Jesus by John, 
and of the ennuch by Philip, was not performed by im- 
mersion, and as these are the cases on which the Baptists 
depend, and which they ordinarily present, as the strongest 
cases in support of their views, we deem it needless to apply 
the rules above any further, though the application might be 
made with equal effect in every other case of Christian 
baptism recorded in the Bible. In conclusion, it is worthy 
of observation, that the rules of interpretation we have 
given are sustained by the classics. 

It is easy to see the influence of the imagination of the 
Baptists in explaining the case of the eunuch. They 
imagine several things : first, that there was a stream of 
water at the place where the eunuch was baptized ; secondly, 
that the stream of water was of sufficient depth for im- 
mersion ; and thirdly, that even then the eunuch was im- 
mersed : not one of which circumstances is referred to in 
the scriptural account of the case. There is no proof that 
there was a stream of water at all at this place; or if a 
stream was there, we have no proof that it was a foot deep; 
or if a foot deep, there is not a particle of proof that the 
eunuch was immersed. And so imagination supplies all 
the circumstances in the baptism of Christ, the three 
thousand on the day of Pentecost, the jailer, Lydia, and 
the thousands baptized by John, in order to make out a 
case of immersion : but the plain rules we have applied in 
this chapter furnish incontestible proof that immersion was 
not practised in one of these instances. On every hand the 
Baptists are opposed by insurmountable difficulties; and in 
my judgment at least, not a single case of immersion can be 
fairly proved from the Bible to have been observed in the 
administration of the sacrament of Christian baptism. If 
one case of immersion could be fau-ly proved, this would not 



84 THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 



establish the exclusiveness of the Baptists with respect to 
MODE, unless it had been enjoined as invariable; but as 
not a single case of immersion can be proved — a fortiori, 
the exclusiveness of the Baptists is not sustained by the 
Scriptures. 

But we go one step farther, and proceed to show what 
the G-reek prepositions do mean when used in connection 
with Christian baptism. They are four in number, viz. iv, 
en ; ^iq, eis ; ar.b, apo ; t/., eh, or e^, ex — a careful examina- 
tion of which will furnish us with proof that there is nothing 
in them to support the opinion that baptism should be ad- 
ministered by immersion. We begin with en. It has 
various meanings. 

First. It primarily denotes the time and place of a trans- 
action, without specifying mode. " Now when Jesus was 
born in (^en) Bethlehem of Judea, in (en) the days of Herod 
the king :" the time and place of the birth of Christ. "In 
(en) those days came John the Baptist, preaching in (en) 
the wilderness of Judea :" tJie time and place of John's 
preaching. " And (Christ) was in (en) the deserts till the 
day of his showing unto Israel :" the place where Christ 
remained in retirement till he entered publicly upon his 
ministry. " And there were in (en) the same country 
shepherds abiding in the field :" the place where the shep- 
herds were attending to their flocks. " And John did bap- 
tize in (en) the wilderness :" the place where he baptized. 
"And these things were done in (en) Bethabara beyond 
Jordan, where John was baptizing :" the place where John 
was baptizing heyond Jordan. " And John also was bap- 
tizing m (en) Enon, near to Salim :'' the place where he 
was baptizing. " And were baptized of him in (en) Jordan, 
confessing their sins :'^ the place merely where he baptized, 
within the banks of the river, near the edge of the water, 
and yet not in the water. Dr. Carson himself admits this ; 



ORIGINAL GREEK PREPOSITIONS. 85 



" Instead of keeping John the Baptist ten hours every day 
in the water, I will not oblige Mm to go into the water at 
all. Me might have stood on the hank. He might have 
been in the river, yet not in the water : all within the 
BANKS is the river/' On Baptism, pp. 336-7, 339. 
And so Richard Watson : " And when within the "bed of 
the stream, he might as truly be said to be in the river, 
when mere place was the thing to be pointed out, as if he 
had been immersed in the water. The Jordan in this respect 
is rather remarkable, having, according to Maundrell, an 
outermost bank by its occasional swellings. '^ The remark 
of this traveller is, " After having descended the outermost 
bank, you go a furlong upon a level ground, before you 
come to the immediate bank of the river." Theo. Insts. 
p. 654. A furlong is the eighth part of a mile, that is, two 
hundred and twenty yards. One anywhere on this beach 
might be said to be in Jordan, and yet " not in the water. ^* 
Place is all that is signified, and no reference whatever is 
made to the mode of baptism. This is the primary mean- 
ing of in, a meaning which might be illustrated by pages 
of quotations from Greek writers. To give but a single 
example : eruyov S" h raJ xtjtzo) TtepLTtarwu, "1 happened to 
be walking in the garden." Plato. And Buttman sustains 
this view ; " 'EN stands in answer to the question where ; 
and signifies in, often also by, at, among.'' Grrammar, 
p. 413. 

Secondly. The preposition £v, en, indicates the instru- 
mental cause or means employed in baptism. "I indeed 
baptize you luith (en) water." " Thou shalt love the Lord 
— with (en) all thy heart, and with (en) all thy soul, and 
with (en) all," &c. ^'If the salt have lost its savor, where- 
with (en tini) shall it be salted?" Thus, in the phrase 
^^ vjith water," the very nature of the case renders it 
necessary that en be rendered with. And this Dr. Carson 



86 THE MODE OF BAPTIS:i. 



admits : "I may be asked, do you deny that it (en) may 
be translated with ? I do not deny this, yet I am disposed 
to lay stress on it." Carson and Cox on Baptism, p. 191. 
In one case, it indicates the place where baptism was ad- 
ministered — as in Bethabara, in Enon, in Jordan; and in 
another case, it signifies the instrumental cause or means, 
governing the dative — as " with water." In the former case, 
mode is not signified; in the latter case, immersion is out 
of the question. All that can be said of en, in the sense of 
with, is, that it denotes specifically that water is the instru- 
ment used in performing baptism : the quantity/ of water 
used, or the mode of using it, is not denoted or specified ; 
and yet the necessity of the case excludes immersion. The 
Baptists frequently give us the . following version : — " For 
John truly immersed in water ; but ye shall be immersed 
in the Holy Ghost." The objection to this is, that in the 
one case, as water is properly used as the instrument, in the 
other case, the Holy G-host, who is the active agent, is 
represented as a passive element in which the apostles are 
plunged, as a man is in water — which is a rendering no* 
only in opposition to reason and sound theology, but to the 
history of the case, for the Holy Ghost, in baptizing the 
apostles, SAT upon them — a statement that, if it imply mode 
at all, favors aflfusion rather than immersion. 

The other prepositions to be considered are eis, ek or ex, 
and opo. Greek prepositions are frequently interchanged. 
*' Jesus was baptized by John in {eis) Jordan" — the only 
instance of eis with the accusative case after the verb hap- 
tizo. Eis, into, in this passage, is substituted for en, in. 
In the following verse we have — " And straightway coming 
up out of the water," &c. The preposition here employed 
is apo, from, and thus the proper translation is, ^'from the 
water," and not out q/the water. This Dr. Carson himself 
concedes : "I admit the proper translation of apo is from, 



ORIGINAL GREEK PREPOSITIONS. 87 



and not out of; and that the argument from the former is 
not of the same nature with that which is founded on eh, 
aiit of." Cox and Carson on Baptism, p. 200. This is all 
we wish to prove. That eis does not mean into may be also 
proved from the history of the baptism of the eunuch. 
" They both went down into (eis) the water. '^ Eis may in 
this instance be translated to. "And when we were all 
fallen to (eis) the earth/' not into the earth. " Jesus there- 
fore Cometh to (eis) the tomb of Lazarus.'' " Peter there- 
fore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to (eis) 
the sepulchre. So they both ran together ; and that other 
disciple did outrun Peter, and came fii'st to (eis) the sepul- 
chre. Thus, " they went down both — from the chariot — to 
(eis) the water." It may be replied, " They both came up, 
out of (eh) the water," implying that both had been into the 
water. But eh, in this passage may be substituted by apoj 
as in many instances eis is placed in contrast with apo. 
" From (apo) city to (eis) city." " From (apo) Jerusalem 
to (eis) Jericho." " The way that goeth down from (apo) 
Jerusalem to (eis) G-aza." Matthew and Mark use apo 
(from) instead of eh (out of) when they describe the 
Saviour's departure from Jordan after his baptism. Be- 
sides, eh is often used to denote simply the point from which 
motion is made. " Howbeit there came other boats from 
(eh) Tiberias." " Get thee from (eh) thy kindred." " Who 
shall deliver me from (eh) the body of this death V " Who 
hath warned you to flee from (apo) the wrath to come ?" 
Thus, we may translate the passages under consideration, 
'^And straightway coming \r^ from the water" — and "they 
went down both to the water — and when they were come up 
from the water." Any one conversant with the Greek 
must admit the justness of these criticisms, and hence come 
to the conclusion that the fact, and not the mode of baptism, 
is all that is intended in these sacred scriptures. The fact 



88 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



of baptism is positively stated and settled : tlie mode of 
baptism in these cases, is a matter of so little importance, 
that it is left to inference ; yet the history of the fact is so 
plain, that inference excludes immersion, and supports 
aifusion. Thus, on every hand, a candid and proper ex- 
amination of the Grreek prepositions which are used in con- 
nection with baptism, is fatal to the Baptist theory of 
immersion. 



CHAPTER III. 



THE HARMONIOUS CONNECTION OF THE »MODE WITH THE 
KNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES OF SPIRITUAL BAPTISM, AND 
THE PLAN OF SALVATION. 

In this chapter, we continue the consideration of the 
mode of baptism. In the preceding chapters, we considered 
the mode of baptism as it is plainly inferred from the Scrip- 
tures, the original word haptizo, and the original Grreek 
prepositions, eis, eh, ex, and apo. As we have regarded it 
all along as a subject of inference, we now proceed to the 
fourth source of inference — 

4. The harmonious connection of the mode with the 
known circumstances of spiritual baptism, and the plan of 
salvation. The significant, expressive, and striking mean- 
ing of water baptism is best set forth when the mode of 
administering it conforms to the mode by which the in- 
fluences of the Holy Spirit are imparted to the believer. 
The most proper mode of baptism, therefore, is that which 
best represents the spiritual haptism. The Scriptures uni- 
versally set forth the mode of the Spirit's agency in baptism 
under the ideas of "sprinkling," "pouring," "baptizing 
with" — and a corresponding mode of external baptism may 



aiODE AND CIRCUMSTANCES HARMONIOUS. 89 



be observed. To refer to but few instances.* It is worthy 
of observation, that whenever reference is made specifically 
to baptism by the Holy Spirit, immersion is never once 
expressed or implied, as the mode employed. Immersion, 
therefore, has nothing in it significative or emblematical 
of spiritual baptism ; and as a mode of baptism, it is without 
analogy and without signification. Moreover, it is impossi- 
ble to ridicule sprinkling and pouring as modes of baptism, 
without reflecting upon the modes adopted by the Holy 
Spirit in imparting spiritual benefits to man — without being 
more than indifferent to the favorite and impressive figures, 
allusions, and statements of the sacred writers, when they 
refer to the manner by which the richest blessings of the 
everlasting covenant are communicated to the heart of the 
believer. Baptism is emblematical both of the effects and 
mode of the operation of the Holy Ghost, and nothing more 
as an emblem. Immersion may be emblematical of the 
effects of the operation -of the Holy Spirit, but as an emblem 
of the mode of the operation of the Holy Spirit it is wholly 
defective. But sprinkling and pouring are expressive em- 
blems in both these respects, and, therefore, are to be pre- 
ferred to immersion as modes of baptism. The use of water, 
in any mode, may be emblematical of the purifying effects 
of the operation of the Holy Spirit; but when the mode 
itself has in it no emblematical meaning, baptism, as a sensi- 
ble rite of the church is so far defective — and such is bap- 
tism by immersion. But sprinkling and pouring, being 
complete in their emblematical character, are the most 
appropriate modes of administering the initiating sacrament 
of the Christian church. ^ But to be more particular. 

* Isa. xliv, 3. Ezek. xxxix. 29. Joel ii. 28, 29. Zech. xii. 10. 
Acts ii. 17, 18; x. 45. Ezek. xxxvi. 25, 26. Isa. Hi. 15. Ps. Ixxii. 6, 
Hosea vi. 3. 

2 "To say that it [immevsion] fi^ires our spiritual doath and resurrec- 

8^ 



90 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



First. Consider the united testimony of the prophet Joel, 
John the Baptist, the blessed Jesus, St. Luke, and the 
apostle Peter. Joel : " And it shall come to pass afterward 
that I will j>oity out — sx-^iu) — my Spirit upon all flesh," &c. 
John, referring to Christ who should fulfil this prophecy, 
declares, " He shall baptize — ^aTzziati — ^you with the Holy 
Ghost, and with fire." And Jesus explains the meaning of 
John, and confirms the prophecy of Joel. ^^ For truly 
John baptized — l^drcxiatv — with water, but ye shall be bap- 
tized — ^a-TKT^^ijffsa^s — with the Holy Ghost not many days 
hence." And therefore, in fulfilment of this prophecy of 
Christ, Luke tells you: "And there appeared unto them 
(the apostles on the day of Pentecost) cloven tongues, as of 
fire, and it sat upon each of them, and they were all filled 
with the Holy Ghost." And now Peter explains the whole 
matter : " This is that which was spoken by the prophet 
Joel, And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, 
I will pour out — ex^j^iu) — my Spirit on all flesh," &c., and 
Peter also explains the baptism of John. " As I began to 
speak," says he, referring to the conversion of the Gentiles, 
'^ the Holy Ghost fell on them as on us at the beginning, 
(Pentecost.) Then remembered I the word of the Lord that 
he said, Jolin indeed baptized you with water , hut ye shall 
he haptized with the Holy Ghost.'' Here the mode of 
spiritual baptism is set forth by Joel, John the Baptist, our 
Saviour, Luke, and Peter ; and it will be safe to follow such 
guides in adopting the mode of external baptism. 

Secondly. St. Paul, 1 Cor. x. 1, 2 : " Moreover brethren, 
I would not that ye should be ignorant how that all our 
fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the 

tion, has, we have seen, no authority from the texts used to prove it; 
and to make a sudden pop under the water to bo emblematical of bvirial, 
is as far-fetched a conceit as any which adorns the Emblems of Quarles, 
without any portion of the ingenuity." Watson's Insts. vol. ii. 660. 



MODE AND CIRCUMSTANCES HARMONIOUS. 91 



sea, and were all baptized unto Moses, in the cloud, and iu 
the sea." In this case, as already observed, God himself 
was the administrator, and is the highest authority for us 
The cloud passes from the front to the rear, between the Is 
raelites and the Egyptians, and in passing over rains upon the 
Israelites, according to the Psalmist: "the clouds poured 
cut water." ^ And Paul says, they were baptized in the sea. 
But Moses says, they went over on dry ground : " and the 
children of Israel went into the midst of the sea on the dry 
ground'^ * And observe specially the 21st verse of the 
same chapter : " And Moses stretched out his hand over 
the sea, and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong 
east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and 
the waters were divided.^' This strong east wind, agitating 
the waters, recoiling and convolving tumultuously, caused 
the spray from the surges to dash over the watery precipices 
on either hand, and thus sprinkle the wondering Israelites 
in the sea, without immersing one of them. Had the Israel- 
ites been immersed on this occasion, they would have fared 
no better than the Egyptians, and no deliverance would have 
been wrought in their case. They could not have been 
immersed on dry land. They could not have been immersed 
in the sea had the cloud come down upon them, for then they 
would have been overwhelmed, and not immersed in the 
proper sense of the term ; but the cloud passed over them, to 
a position between them and the Egyptians. They could not 
have been immersed in the sea, except by the closing of the 
sea over them ; but they went over on dry land. And yet 
they were all baptized; and it is inconceivable how they were 
baptized in any other way than by sprinkling or pouring. 
The circumstances of the passage of the Red Sea, interpret 
them as you will, cannot favor immersion, or oppose sprin- 

3 Ps. Ixxvii. 16. 4 Ex. s.iv. 22. 



92 THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 



kling or pouring. It is worthy of observation in passing, 
that, all the children likewise, were baptized in this instance. 
Thirdly. Hear Isaiah : ^^ So shall he sprinkle many 
nations."^ This prophecy doubtless has reference to the 
universality and fulness of the gospel blessings; and the 
argument respecting the mode of their communication is a 
brief one. If the word ^^ sprinkle'^ is to be taken literally, 
then the mode is at once specified. Or, if the word " sprin- 
kle'^ has a spiritual meaning, and is to be taken figuratively, 
then the outward baptism ought to correspond to the inward 
baptism ; so that in either case, the mode of external bap- 
tism is easily suggested. It was this passage of Scripture 
that Philip found the eunuch examining, and hence we in- 
fer, that when he descended from his chariot to the water, 
he was baptized by ^^ sprinkling.'^® 

5 Isa. lii. 15. 

^ In order to evade the force of this argument, the Baptists have made 
a fruitless effort to distort the original meaning of the Hebrew by re- 
ferring to the Septuagint translation. " The LXX translated this word 
[yazzeh] into thaumasuntai, which signifies either to astonish, or to cause 
to exult or rejoice. But in no instance is it equivalent to sprinkle, as is 
known by all who understand the Greek language." Chapin's Letters, 
p. 48. The same ground is taken by the Baptists in the " Baptismal 
Question" in "Review" by Wm. Hague, p. 26. In the first place, the 
question is not to be settled by the Septuagint, but by the original 
Hebrew. In the second place, the Hebrew word yazzeh uniformly means 
in the Scripture to sprinkle. As, " Thou shalt take the blood that is 
upon the altar, and of the anointing oil, and sprinkle it upon Aaron," &c. 
Ex. xxix. 21. "And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and 
sprinkle of the blood seven times." Lev. iv. 6. "And he shall sprinkle 
of the blood of the sin offering upon the east side of the altar." Lev. v. 9. 
" And he shaU sprinkle upon him that is cleansed from the leprosy seven 
times." Lev. xiv. 7. And the Vulgate translation of the word is in har- 
mony with the Hebrew word: "Iste asperget gentes multas." Isa. lii. 15. 
In the third place, in reference to this passage, Professor Ripley observea, 
" Was the prophet, I ask, speaking of any particular outward observance 
to be performed J or did he simply convey the idea that Grod would purify 
bis people from their iniquity? And did he not represent this moral 



MODE AND CIRCUMSTANCES HARMONIOUS. 93 



Fourthly. Ezekiel comes next. The Jews are yet to be 
converted and introduced into the Christian church, and this 
is to be formally set forth'by baptism, the initiating sacra- 
ment of the Christian dispensation. Hear the prophet, 
hundreds of years before this event : " For I will take you 
from among the heathen, &c., then will I sprinkle clean 
water upon you," &c.'' Whether literal or figurative, sprin- 
kling is the mode of baptism indicated by the prophet. 
. Fifthly. Consider Peter's question respecting the baptism 
of Cornelius and his family. " Can any forbid water that 
these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy 
Grhost as well as we ?'' ^ This question presents three things : 
first, that the spiritual baptism was received he/ore the ex- 
ternal baptism; secondly, the propriety of the correspond- 
ence between the mode of the inward and outward baptism ; 
and thirdly, the strong probability that the water was brought 
and applied. '■'■ Can any forbid water,'^ that it should be 
brought and applied to a baptismal use in the case of these 
persons who have received the Holy G-host as well as we ? 

Sixthly. Matthew shall be heard. " Then went out to him 
[John the Baptist] Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region 
round -about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, 
confessing their sins." ^ We have no objection to the trans- 
lation of the preposition ev — en — in this instance, in our 
English version. It is translated correctly. The trans- 
lators were too well acquainted with the nature of the river 
Jordan to translate it otherwise, as we shall presently 
see. As John was now opening a new dispensation, and as 

purifying by the emblem of sprinhling, to vrhich tbeir ritual had ac- 
customed them as significant of purification ?" Eipley's Exam, of Stuart, 
p. 139. 

Professor Ripley, a Baptist, had too much sense to give the original 
Hebrew word the meaning assigned to it in the Septuagint. 

" Ezek. xxxyi. 24, 26. » Acts x. 47. 9 Matt. iii. 5, 6. 



94 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



great nmltitudes were daily initiated by baptism, it was 
necessary that he should take his position at some most 
eligible place. In the southern deserts of Judea, the streams 
are few and scanty, probably in the summer entirely dried 
up. The nearest large body of water is the Dead Sea. The 
western banks of this great lake are mostly rugged and pre- 
cipitous; besides, natural feeling and religious awe would 
have caused the people to shrink from receiving the holy 
ordinance in these fetid, unwholesome, and accursed waters. 
The usual station, therefore, which John selected, was 
Bethabara, the ford of Jordan, which tradition pointed out 
as the place where the waters divided before the ark. Here, 
though the adjacent region toward Jerusalem is wild and 
desert, the immediate shores offer spots of great convenience 
and picturesque beauty. The Jordan has a kind of double 
channel. In its summer coui'se, the shelving banks, to 
the tops of which the waters reach at its period of flood, 
are covered with acacia and other trees of great luxuriance, 
and amid the rich vegetation and grateful shade afforded at 
this spot, Italian painters have imagined the unruffled 
Jordan reflecting the wondering multitudes of every class 
and age, gathered around with deep interest and intense 
curiosity, and John performing the sacred rite to listening 
and devotional thousands. The multitudes baptized went 
down into the Jordan to the water in the inner channel, and 
were baptized — how ? Let John himself answer : ^^ I in- 
deed baptize you with water'' — here in Jordan, on the bank 
of the inner channel. This explains Christ's coming up 
out of J or from — arto — the water, and reconciles Matthew 
and John, the former saying that the ordinance was ad- 
ministered in Jordan, and the latter asserting that he bap- 
tized with water. One might have gone down into Jordan 
without touching the water. We would not have the trans- 
lation altered. This relieves the minds of such as are 



MODE AND CIRCUMSTANCES HARMONIOUS. 95 



troubled about the example of Christ, since we conclude 
that as Christ ascended from the bank of the inner channel, 
a radiant light, with the rapid and undulating motion of a 
dove, DESCENDED UPON him, and the voice from heaven was 
heard, ^^This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well 
pleased/' 

That the phrase ^^ in Jordan' ' does not necessarily involve 
the idea of immersion, let us consider the passage of the 
Israelites over Jordan as described by Joshua : ^' And thou 
shalt command the priests that bear the ark of the covenant, 
saying, when ye are come to the brink of the water of Jor- 
dan, ye shall stand still in Jordan.'' ^" And yet they were 
not immersed, for the waters were immediately divided^ and 
the priests stood firm on dry ground^ IN THE midst of 
Jordan, and all the Israelites passed over on dry ground. 
Finally, we have seen, in the examination of the original 
Greek prepositions, in the preceding chapter, that h, the 
preposition here used, never means into^ except in connec- 
tion with the verb, and in this case it is used disconnected 
from the verb, and, therefore, in this place it cannot denote 
immersion. 

Thus, as baptism in a spiritual sense is set forth by the 
prophets, Christ, and his apostles, under the ideas of sprin- 
kling and pouring ; therefore the external mode of baptism 
should be sprinkling or pouring, to correspond to the mode 
of spiritual baptism. In a word, there can be no force or 
importance at all in the mere mode, unless it be of such a 
significative character as to represent the internal spiritual 
baptism, that thereby the harmony of the whole plan of re- 
demption may be preserved. And hence, we infer, that 
sprinkling and pouring are the most appropriate modes of 
external baptism, because they preserve the harmony, con- 

10 Josh. iii. 8. 



96 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



nection^ and simplicity of the whole Christian scheme. We 
do not, however, exclude immersion : all we mean is, that 
immersion cannot be sustained on the ground of analogy 
and the rational probabilities connected with the instances 
of baptism we have mentioned. All the force of significa- 
tion, analogy, probability, and consistency is in favor of 
sprinkling and pouring as the most proper modes of ad- 
ministering the initiating sacrament of the Christian dispen- 
sation : on these grounds, immersion cannot he sustained even 
as a proper mode — much less as the most proper, or as the 
only proper mode. A single remark shall close this chapter. 
The idea of unity arises in the mind long before investiga- 
tion and comparison have verified it. While we are com- 
bining a thousand particulars, each suggests the necessity 
of something remaining to complete the process, and, every 
step of the process, we anticipate unity and harmony in the 
final result. When the path of investigation is plain and 
easy, any incongruity or disagreement that arises is readily 
perceived. The system of evangelical truth is consistent in 
all its principles and institutions, and in the examination of 
the Scriptures in this chapter, we perceive in the dogma of 
immei^sion such an incongruity or disagreement, that we 
cannot reconcile it with the general system of truth. The 
Baptists give more importance to immersion than to any 
other external service of Christianity — an importance, which 
neither the Bible, nor reason, nor common sense justifies — 
a mode of an ordinance which is less adapted than any other 
to impress the heart with moral feelings and religious emo- 
tions. Christ and his apostles never made such ado about 
the mode of any institution of Christianity, especially of 
that which is of inferior importance when compared with the 
rest. It is not only an incongruity, but a bold innovation, to 
invest baptism with the same import which Christ and 
his apostles connected specifically and distinctly with the 



MODE AND CIRCUMSTANCES HARMONIOUS. 97 



eucharist, and thus, in a great degree, to confound the two 
sacraments. Why say so much about the '■^ solemn associa- 
tions'' and '^ holy tendencies'^ of immersion, which, indeed, 
few at any time can even imagine to be suggested by it, and 
say nothing about the external power and sacred influence 
of the eucharist, the Sabbath day, and ministry, which 
occur so often in one's life, and which all most readily 
admit ? Why this strenuous, persevering, and pertinacious 
effort to exalt to supreme importance the mere mode of an 
ordinance, which, though of great importance, Paul regarded 
of so little weight compared with the spirituality of the gos- 
pel, as to thank Grod that he had baptized but few among 
the Corinthians? Do immersionists ever affirm, as Paul 
did, that they were sent, not to baptize, but to preach the 
gospel ? Do not immersionists direct their preaching rather 
to the water of some pond or stream, than to the hlood of 
Jesus? Does not such zeal justly merit the rebuke of 
Christ : " If ye had known what that meaneth, / will have 
mercy and not sacrijice, je would not have condemned the 
guiltless?'' And may they not properly be classed with 
Peter, who, when Christ bathed the feet of the disciples, 
considered that not enough, but which Christ thought to be 
sufficient ? 

But the Baptists reply, ^^ immersion is a cross to be taken 
up." Then why are not crosses connected with all the 
other external services of Christianity? Why select this 
from all the rest, and make it more burdensome than all the 
rest ? Immersion, indeed, is often exceedingly inconvenient, 
and if this is to be considered a cross, especial^ to females, 
why not connect some inconvenience with each of the other 
institutions of Christianity, and call it a cross, and so have 
a cross to be taken up in each case ? Why hit upon the 
mode of baptism as a cross, and invest it with a religious 

sanctity ? If there is a spiritual crucifixion in immersion, 

9 



98 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



why are not all believers who are immersed, more exemplary 
than other Christians ? But the difference, if any exists, is 
not so great as to be perceived in a single instance : it never 
yet has appeared that a man was a better Christian than his 
pious neighbor, because he was immersed. What ! does it 
harmonize with sound views of the Christian system, that 
nearly the whole church should be regarded as unhaptizedj 
as in a state of disohediencej unworthy of recognition as 
Christians, and as worthy of exclusion from the communion 
table, because of difference in opinion and practice respecting 
the mode of a religious ordinance ? Is it rational that the 
Baptist^ s should make difference in opinion respecting the 
mere mode of an ordinance of Christianity, a sufficient 
ground for a distinct ecclesiastical organization that pre- 
cludes the most intimate union with all other branches of 
the Christian church ? Especially when the ground of this 
preclusion has not incorporated in it one single element or 
doctrine of the plan of salvation ? Indeed, destitute of con- 
nection and harmony with the plan of salvation, the doc- 
trine of exclusive immersion might be safely expunged from 
the creed of the Baptist church, and so a uniform practice 
in the administration of the sacraments might be intro- 
duced, by which not only all Christendom would rejoice, but 
the success of Christianity the more rapidly promoted. 



THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL NATITRE, ETC. 99 



CHAPTER lY. 

THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL NATURE OE THE INSTITUTIONS 
OF CHRISTIANITY LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE 
CHURCH. 

5. The suhstantial nature of the institutions of Chris- 
tianity is all that is specifically enjoined by Christ and his 
apostles as binding upon the church in all ages : the mode, 
or circumstantial nature of the institutions of Christianity, 
is left to the discretion of the church. 

First. Man is substantially the same everywhere, and 
always. Hence, the truth of Grod, adapted to man's sub- 
stantial nature, is immutable. But circumstantially, man 
is infinitely various ; and hence changes may be made in the 
external government of the church, as circumstances may 
requu-e, provided nothing be done which is in conflict with 
the essential principles of the gospel. That is, while preach- 
ing, prayer, the observance of the Lord's day, the sacra- 
ments, &c. are essential, and enjoined as obligatory to the 
end of time, as adapted to man's substantial nature; the 
mode of preaching, of praying, of observing the Lord's day, 
and of administering the sacraments, is non-essential, and 
indifferent, and so may be adapted to man's circumstantial 
nature, whatever it may be, provided it be not immoral or 
irrational. As man's circumstantial nature is infinitely 
various, the exercise of power in matters in themselves not 
essential and indifferent, such as the regulation of outward 
forms and ceremonies to suit different ages and countries, is 
left to the discretion of uninspired men. It is true, this 



100 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



power may be abused, and it has been, by the church ; but 
a sufficient restriction is found in the maxim, that no out- 
ward form or ceremony is to be adopted and practised which 
is inconsistent with the plain and immutable truth of God. 
Such are the imperfections of man, and the vicissitudes to 
which he is essentially exposed, that in many respects, no 
form of external church government can be permanent and 
uniform ; and hence, in the nature of things, the church, in 
its external constitution, must be subject to various changes 
and modifications. But the spirit or essential principles of 
the church, must never be compromitted, nor in any case be 
modified or weakened, to suit the imperfections of man, or 
the changes of time. Through all prosperous and calami- 
tous events of history, the purity and force of original prin- 
ciples must be preserved, and the lustre of truth remain 
undimmed. However its limits may be extended, or its 
influence augmented, or its authority respected, from age to 
age, the essential truth of the Bible is to be preserved in its 
original spirit and scope. The laws which are to govern the 
church, and which are the centre of union, are of two kinds : 
those which are divine, enacted by God himself, contained 
in the Bible, immutable, consisting of doctrines to be be- 
lieved, the credenda, and doctrines to be practised, the 
agenda, diXidi precepts which enjoin experience, all of which 
are adapted to all forms of humanity, in all ages of time ; 
and those which are enacted by the church, viz. rules and 
regulations for the better administration of the word, the 
sacraments, and discipline. The divine laws are the basis 
of the unity of the church : the ecclesiastical are the basis 
of variety in Christian communities ) that is, there may be 
a difference of opinion as to mode of worship, and the man- 
ner of observing the ordinances of Christianity, but this 
difference must, in all cases, be in harmony with the gospel 
and Divine Providence, and not cause a difference in re- 



THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL NATURE, ETC. 101 



ligious practice, or a departure in the least degree from tlie 
simplicity and spirit of the gospel. Thus, the church of 
Christ, according to evangelical principles, is universal, 
that is, ^^ one body ;'' and though separated by the necessity 
of providential circumstances, and existing in different 
places and ages, and governed by different modes of external 
government, it retains all the unity possible. And so the 
evengelical ordinances are the rights, not only of one branch 
of the Christian church, but of the whoie church of 
Christ; and hence, a person who receives baptism from 
one branch of the Christian church becomes a member of 
the " one body,^' or universal church, that is, in the lan- 
guage of Acts, he is " added to the church.'' And so a 
person who joins in the Lord's supper with one branch of 
the church, unites with the whole church, in every place, 
who ^^ show forth" the Lord's " death." And so also when 
he forfeits right to . be associated with one branch of the 
church, he ceases to be a member of the universal church. 

Ecclesiastical government is the science of adaptations in 
harmony with the spirit of the gospel. No ecclesiastical 
form of government can be immutable, and hence, in ac- 
cordance with the very nature of things, no rules and regu- 
lations of a fixed and immutable character are prescribed in 
the Bible. The gospel is designed to improve and exalt 
mankind, and hence, rules and regulations, applicable in the 
earlier stages of improvement in any nation, or community, 
may not be applicable in some subsequent advanced stage 
of progress. The old rules and regulations may now be 
obsolete and inapplicable, and new rules and regulations 
adapted to the new condition are required; but in the 
adoption of new rules, for the new condition, no principle 
of the gospel, we repeat, is to be sacrificed or compromitted. 
The law of external progress requires a corresponding ex- 
terna] change. The different habits, manners, pursuits; 

9* 



102 THE MODE or BAPTISM. 



employments, professions, climate, and character of different 
nations, as well as their relative local intelligence, and re- 
lative moral and political improvement, present insurmount- 
able barriers to any uniform, system of external church go- 
vernment, and necessarily require that there be correspond- 
ing modifications in the rules and regulations of the church. 
Thus, the positive and invariable rites and ceremonies of the 
peculiar people of the Jews were regarded by Christ and his 
apostles as unsuitable to ^^ all nations," and so abrogated, 
and the ceremonial form of the church left open for the re- 
quired modification and adaptation, to "the end of the world." 
The apostles made no modifications, repeals, or changes in 
church government inconsistent with the spirit of the com- 
mandments given to them by Christ. They were invested 
with authority to provide for the wants of the church as they 
should arise. Such forms, practices, and institutions of the 
church as were of such a nature as to require no change, are 
recorded as such in Scripture : the rest are omitted. Thus, 
the form of baptism, " in the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Grhost," is of such a nature as to re- 
quire no change to the end of the world. Mere modes are 
all omitted ; the substance only is of divine appointment, 
and the adoption of any mode in harmony with the substance 
is left optional with the church. Though the sacred writers 
speak of baptism again and again, directly and indirectly, 
and under a variety of aspects, they have not stated a single 
term, or fact, or figure, that defines clearly what mode was 
employed, in a single instance, and that puts the question 
of mode beyond a doubt ; and yet every instance recorded is 
reconcilable with perfusion and sprinkling, while not one is 
related which, in our judgment at least, can be ration- 
ally reconciled with plunging or immersion. If then the 
apostles themselves did not regard the mode the?/ employed, 
in any case, to be of such importance as to require unequivo- 



THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL NATURE, ETC. 103 



cal specification, it is evident that they did not regard mere 
mode as an essential matter, and so have left the church at 
liberty to vary the mode as circumstances may require. 

Secondly. That the circumstantial nature of the institu- 
tions of Christianity is left to the discretion of the church, 
may he proved from ANALOGY. 

The Lord's supper is a divine and positive institution, 
and yet the mode of celelbrating it is not specifically enjoined, 
though we know precisely the circumstances and the mode 
of its celebration by our Lord and his apostles. They met 
in the night ; we meet in the day. They met on Thursday ; 
we meet on Sunday. They met in an upper chamber of a 
private dwelling; we meet in the church, or house of public 
worship. They used unleavened bread, and the pure juice 
of the grape; we regard these particulars as indifferent. 
They received the sacrament in a recumbent posture ; the 
church now receives it standing, sitting, or kneeling. Now 
there is not a church in Christendom that conforms to the 
circumstances of the apostolic mode of receiving this sacra- 
ment. It is universally conceded, that the practice of Christ 
and his apostles as to the mode of receiving one of the sacra- 
ments does not bind us. If Christ and his apostles regarded 
the circumstantial nature of one of the sacraments of so little 
consequence as not to make it binding upon us, even though 
the circumstances of its original celebration are definitely 
stated, it is evident that they regarded the mode of observing 
the other sacrament also of no consequence. Indeed, by strict 
analogy, though the mode of baptism had been made a 
matter of specific sacred history, even then the apostolic 
mode would not be any more binding upon us than the 
apostolic mode of receiving the eucharist is, unless it had 
been positively and specifically excepted and enjoined as 
binding upon all people and in all ages. But as the apos- 
tolic mode of baptism is not even definitely stated, it is in- 



104 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



conceivalble how the -Baptist can rationally make an excep- 
tion in this case. 

Thirdly. That the circumstantial nature of the institutions 
of Christianity is left to the discretion of the church, is con- 
firmed hy FACT. All evangelical churches, though baptized 
in different ways, are equally regarded by Grod as Christians, 
as well those who are baptized by immersion as those who 
are baptized by sprinkling or affusion. They all receive the 
regenerating and sanctifying grace of Grod — they all ex- 
perience an ardent love for the Saviour, and manifest an 
intense and laudable zeal for the promotion of his cause 
among men — they all labor with success in the cause of 
Christ — they all receive gracious answers to prayer in seasons 
of aflSiction and temptation and trial— they all enjoy the 
special presence of the Holy Spirit in the proper observance 
of the sacraments — they all enjoy a special spiritual profit in 
preaching and hearing the word, and in singing the praise 
of God — they all enjoy the presence of God in the hour of 
death — they all are received into the everlasting kingdom 
of God — and they all will be judged worthy of eternal life, 
and exalted to as high degree of blessedness in heaven. 
This is enough — God's seal of approbation on earth is enough 
— his seal and welcome on the last day will be enough — 
enough to prove that God does not consider diversity of 
opinion as to the mode of baptism to be of essential conse- 
quence in the accomplishment of the great interests of re- 
ligion, personal and relative. Do not the Baptists place 
themselves in opposition to the mind of God ? Do not the 
Baptists make requisitions at variance with the Divine 
administration? 

We shall close this branch of the argument with two or 
three quotations. Grotius observes, that "ritual institu- 
tions must give way not only to a public necessity, but to a 
public benefit and advantage.'' The pious Mr. Henry says, 



THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL NATURE, ETC. 105 



'^ let the circumstance give way to the substance, and let not 
the thing itself be lost upon a nicety about time/' And 
Luther remarks, "It is not the water that produces the 
benefits, but the word of God which is connected with the 
water, and our faith confiding in the word of Grod in this 
baptismal water. For without the word of Grod, the water 
is mere water; but with the word of Grod, it is a baptism/' 
Luther's Catechism, 4th part, ques. 5th. ^^ For in Jesus 
Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncir- 
cumcision ; but faith which worketh hy love/' Glal. v. 6. 
It will be perceived that we have proceeded thus far in this 
chapter upon the gratuitous concession that immersion 
was practised by the apostles, and then deduce that im- 
mersion is not binding upon the church in subsequent ages, 
since the circumstantial nature of Christianity is left to the 
discretion of the church — and the mode of haptism is not 
recor^ded as a SPECIFIC exception. But we do not even 
make this concession — and go one step farther. 

Fourthly, Sprinkling as a mode of baptism is more in 
accordance with the substantial nature of Christianity and 
the common sense of mankind than immersion. 

It was customary among the Hebrews, Greeks, and 
Latins, to wash their hands in token of purity. According 
to the Mussulman's creed, the devotee is pronounced wholly 
clean upon washing the handsj feet, face, and a part of the 
head. The principle that entire purity is significantly 
represented by the application of water to a part of the body 
only, has been clearly recognised by different nations, in 
different ages of the world — a principle that is so rational, 
that the Bible itself has sanctioned it — indeed, a principle 
which, it is probable, all nations have borrowed from the 
Bible, and so by the providence of God has obtained among 
"all nations" as preparatory to the easy adoption of the 
mode of baptism when the gospel should be preached in " all 



106 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



the world/^ That this principle is sanctioned in the Bible, 
we shall now proceed to show. Among the ancient Jews, the 
ciders of the city, nearest which a murdered man was found, 
were required (Deut. xxi. 1-9) to " wash their hands over 
a slain heifer,'^ in token of their innocence, and the inno- 
cence of the people of Israel : a partial washing was all that 
was required. In token of the entire purity, David says, 
^^ I will wash my hands in innocency.^' Ps. xxvi. 6. So 
Pilate " took water and washed his hands, saying, I am 
innocent of the blood of this just person." Matt, xxvii. 24. 
David again : " SjprinJcle me with hyssop, and I shall be 
clean. '^ Ps. li. 7. And so Ezekiel : " Then will I sprinkle 
clean water upon you, and you shall he clean.'' Ezek. xxxvi. 
25. And so the Jewish and Christian dispensations are 
compared : ^^ The blood of bulls and of goats and the ashes 
of a heifer, sprinMing the unclean, sanctifieth to the purify- 
ing of the flesh." Heb. ix. 13. ^' Having your hearts sprin- 
kled from an evil conscience." A real spiritual cleansing, 
not a ceremonial, is represented by the same word : " Elect 
according to the foreknowledge of Grod the Father, through 
the sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprhi- 
kling of the blood of Jesus Christ." 1 Pet. i. 2. Again : 
"Ye are come — to Jesus and to the blood of sprinkling." 
Heb. xii. 24. Again : " There are three that bear witness 
in earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood : and these 
three agree in one." 1 John v. 8. The operations of "the 
Spirit," and the application of " the blood" of Christ, are 
represented by " sprinkling ;" to " agree in one," therefore, 
analogy teaches that " the water" in baptism should be ad- 
ministered by sprinkling. Thus, sprinkling as a mode of 
baptism is in harmony with the substantial nature of Chris- 
tianity ; that is, as it is in exact harmony with the scriptural 
examples of mode representing entire purification, ceremonial 
and spiritual, it is perfectly in accordance with Scriptura 



THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL NATURE, ETC. 107 



Sprinklingj as a mode of baptism, is founded upon a princi- 
ple long since settled by Jehovah himself, that a partial 
washing is sufficient to represent entire spiritual purification ; 
and when opponents ridicule sprinkling as a mode of bap- 
tism, they ridicule a principle sanctioned and settled by 
Divine authority from the remotest antiauity of the church, 
and recognised by the common sense of mankind. 

As there is then no definite model of church government 
prescribed in the New Testament, so there is no specification 
of the mode of administering the sacraments of the Christian 
church. Positive institutions may be specifically enjoined 
in the word of Grod, while the circumstances and mode of 
their original observance may not be enjoined as of per- 
petual obligation, and hence the circumstances and mode of 
their original observance are to be regarded as non-essential. 
Circumcision was a positive institution of the church, under 
the Jewish dispensation, but the manner of performing it is 
not specifically detailed. The manner and circumstances of 
the original observance of the Lord's supper are nowhere 
specifically enjoined in the Bible, and consequently no in- 
variable manner or mode can be instituted as necessary to 
its celebration in the present day. ^^As oft as ye eatj' 
&c. gives a latitude that leaves the frequency and manner 
of the celebration of the holy eucharist optional with the 
church. And hence the various Christian denominations 
differ from each other in the frequency and manner of the 
observance of the Lord's supper. What is specified is 
solemnly binding, as for instance, the recurrence and ob- 
servance of the Sabbath. Moses was bound to make the 
snuffers of pure gold; to prepare the holy oil by mixing 
certain specified ingredients; to make the priest's robe of 
such a quality, color, and length; to construct the ark, 
tabernacle, &c. of such materials, and of such a size — for he 
received specific instructions respecting these things from 



^08 THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 



God on the mount. But where is the mode or form of the 
Christian church, in every particular, and especially the 
manner of the observance of its ordinances, clearly pre- 
scribed in the Scriptures ? Not in the Grospels, not in the 
Epistles, nor in the Acts of the Apostles, nor anywhere else 
in the Bible. The system of Christianity, we repeat, is 
designed for every age and nation of the world — a system 
at once sublime, tender, tolerant, and impartial; bearing 
the infirmities of the weak, and prescribing no rite, or mode, 
which is not of easy and universal application. Thus, a 
little bread and wine has been thought sufficient to show 
forth the design of the sacrament of the Lord's supper ; and 
so a little water is sufficient to show forth the design of bap- 
tism, the other sacrament of the Christian church : so the 
design is accomplished, the sacrament is properly ad- 
ministered. Bread and wine, in the one case, and water, 
in the other case, are specified as the emblems; but the 
manner of using them to show forth the design of the sacra- 
ments is nowhere specified and enjoined in the Bible. Had 
Jesus Christ and his apostles judged the manner of observing 
the sacraments of the Christian church essential, it is evi- 
dent then they would have stated it specifically ; but as they 
have not done so, they differ materially from the Baptists 
with regard to the doctrine of baptism. The Baptists ac- 
complish the design of the Lord's supper by the use of a 
little bread and wine — why not pursue the same coui'se with 
regard to the design of baptism ? In this sense, immersion 
^•^is a sin by excess f^ and in another sense, it "is a sin by 
defect.'' As a washing, it is admitted, that it does illustrate 
the purifying effects of the Holy Spirit ; but beyond this it 
means nothing that is rational or emblematical, since the 
mode of the Spirit's baptism is without representation. 
This double emblematical sense is set forth either by sprin- 
kling or pouring. 



COLLATERAL PROOFS. 109 



CHAPTER V. 

COLLATERAL PROOFS. 

6. "We proceed, in the last place, to the sixth source of 
information respecting the mode of baptism — namely, collate- 
ral proofs. 

First. That mode of baptism is most proper which is of 
universal application, — since the Christian dispensation, of 
which baptism is the initiating sacrament, is designed to be 
a universal blessing. One of the indispensable characteris- 
tics of a sacrament is, that it be universal in its application. 
But in certain cases of disease, as well as in the feebleness 
of sickness, and approach to death, immersio^ would not 
only be fatal, but horrible. And so in certain latitudes of 
the earth, and, even in our own country in certain seasons 
of the year, immersion would be attended with inconve- 
niences in the highest degree imprudent and dangerous, if 
not altogether unacceptable in the sight of Grod, utterly des- 
titute of spiritual profit, and wholly useless in a spiritual 
sense to man. And so in vast and arid deserts, where for 
many wearisome days not a drop of water can be found to 
drink, much less enough for immersion. And so in the 
cases of persons imprisoned, where immersion is impractica- 
ble, as in the case of the Philippian jailer. All this is 
avoided by the milder, more convenient, and more appropriate 
modes of sprinkling and pouring. 

Secondly. That mode is most proper which best comports 
with the design of baptism as it respects the state of the sub- 
ject's mind at the time of baptism. The proper reception of 

10 



110 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



baptism requires a calm and unruiHed spirit, imbued with 
the serene, devotional feelings of awe, gratitude, and love. 
Amid the circumstances of immersion — the trembling, shiver- 
ing, shrinking — step by step of alarm and agitation, through 
the cold and deeper waters — the apprehension, the painful 
apprehension of sinking — the frequent strangling — the 
novelty of the circumstances — the gaping, curious crowd — 
the fear of accident — all combine to confuse the mind of the 
subject, especially if a female, toiling under the weight of 
heavy apparel, drifting in the water, and struggling, under 
no small embarrassment, toward the outstretched arms of 
friends on the shore, and restored to composure only when 
shielded by a friendly mantle hastily thrown over the almost 
fainting person, or protected in some shelter at hand, or 
seated in a closed and rapidly retiring carriage. Amid all 
these distressing circumstances, how is it possible to pre- 
serve that calm, collected, solemn, and devotional frame of 
mind, which religion demands in the administration of her 
ordinances and the reception of her blessings ? How solemn 
and impressive however is this ordinance, when it is ad- 
ministered by sprinkling or pouring in the sanctuary, in 
view of the serious and worshipping assembly ! 

Thirdly. Immersion, in the case of females, is indelicate. 
One of two things must be true: either the immersion of 
females is indelicate, or our notions of delicacy are false. 
Religion, in the whole scope of its principles, ordinances, 
institutions, practices, and customs, never violates true taste, 
and all true taste is founded upon the purity of religion. 
Now of all the services of religion, immersion of females — 
delicate in their forms, gentle in their manners, retiring 
in their dispositions, modest in their feelings, chaste in their 
sentiments, and shrinking with scrupulous care from the 
gaze of the world — is made the only indelicate branch of 
external service found in the whole arrangement of the Chris- 



COLLATERAL PROOFS. Ill 



tian church. The plunging a female under the water by a 
man, though he be the holy minister of G-od, under the cir- 
cumstances usually attending the immersion of females, I 
have, no words to justify, except as the act respects its re- 
ligious associations. What other considerations can justify 
the action ? Is it reasonable to suppose, that the pure re- 
ligion of the gospel, the defence of modest and delicate 
woman, imposes upon her this most unpleasant duty, with- 
out some obvious and sufficient justification? There is 
nothing like the immersion of females that obtains the 
sanction of public opinion, morality, and refined taste, in 
polished society. Take away from immersion its religious 
associations, and you turn away with confusion from the 
scene. Does religion dispense with modesty in the adminis- 
tration of her ordinances ? I ask, does religion impose that 
as binding, from which the world retires, and which it would 
not witness with any respect, but for its religious associations ? 
On what other ground is all this justified ? — indeed, on what 
other ground would woman consent to go before a gazing 
multitude, to be plunged in the water? None whatever. 
But does Grod impose that which nothing else allows ? Alas, 
what scenes sometimes occur at these ^^ baptizings,'^ as they 
are called, on the mill-pond bank, or river shore, crowded 
with gazing, laughing, curious men, rude and polished, white 
and colored, holy and vile — some pitying, some averting 
their heads, others laughing, others blushing, and others 
rejoicing when the scene closes without accident or mis- 
fortune ! Woman ! subject not thyself to a useless service 
for Christ, by compromising the feelings of delicacy to the 
impulses of a morbid piety. Such a humiliating tribute is 
not demanded of thee by the holy and indulgent Jesus. 
He would rather see thee bathe his feet with thy tears, and 
wipe them with the hair of thy head, than consign thy frail 
form to the "liquid grave." No, Jesus will not be dis- 



112 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



pleased if baptism in the form of immersion be declined by 
thee. 

It is truly surprising, that the mind, in other things well 
informed, can be induced to submit to some things from 
mistaken views of religious obligation, under the solemn 
impression that it is doing God's service. Pardon me, 
ladies, — formerly, females were baptized naked. The sub- 
ject was led down into the water by those of her own sex 
to the proper depth, and afterward the administrator ap- 
proached and immersed her by gently pushing her head 
forward, and then retired, leaving her to her attendants.^ 

' Lest the fact should be denied, that the primitive Christians received 
baptism in a state of nahedness, I furnish the reader with the following 
testimonies. " The ancient Christians, when they were baptized by im- 
mersion, were all baptized naked, whether they were men, women, or 
children. Vossius, De Baptism. Disp. 1, ch. 6, 7, 8, has collected seve- 
ral proofs of this, which I omit, because it is a clear case." Wall's 
Hist. Inf. Bap. vol. ii. p. 417. " This rite was performed by three im- 
mersions, and the body was divested of clothes. In order to preserve 
decency in the operation, the baptismal font of the women was separated 
from that of the men, and they were as much as possible attended by the 
deaconesses of the church." Gregory's Church Hist. London Edition, 
1795, vol. i. p. 89. cent. 2. " The primitive Christians baptized naked. 
Nothing is easier than to give proof of this by quotations from the au- 
thentic writings of the men who administered baptism, and who certainly 
knew in what way they themselves performed it. There is no ancient 
historical fact better authenticated than this." Robinson's Hist, of Bap- 
tism. Edi. 1717, c. 15, p. 94. Mr. Robinson is a Baptist historian of the 
highest reputation among the Baptists. Basnage, " than whom," it is 
said, "no man understood church history better," observes, "When 
artists threw garments over pictures of the baptized they consulted the 
taste of the spectators more than the truth of the fact." In administer- 
ing baptism to the women, the method adopted seems to have been this : 
" They took great care to preserve the modesty of any woman that was 
to be baptized. None but women came near or in sight, till she was 
undressed, and her body in the water : then the priest came, and putting 
her head under water, used the form of baptism. Then he departed, and 
the women took her out of the water, and clothed her agivin with white 
garments." Wall, vol. ii. p. 418. 



COLLATERAL PROOFS. 113 



The preservation of modesty was impossible. Yet this was 
primitive usage, and it greatly embarrasses the Baptists. 
They foresee the difficulty, and compromise the obligation 
to adhere strictly to the ancient practice, by saying, '^the 
primitive Christians baptized naked ', we baptize clothed.^' 

As this immersion of females is unquestionably indeli- 
cate, the inference is a strong one that it is not indispensa- 
ble to the baptism of the other sex, since, under the Chris- 
tian dispensation, which is universal in the distribution of 
its blessings, its initiating sacrament must be universal in its 
application. It is not to be supposed, that Christ would 
enjoin an initiating, sacrament of the Christian dispensation 
which is not equally applicable to every age, sex, and con- 
dition of believers, and in every case perfectly consistent 
with modesty, purity of taste, and the holiest emotions. 
" Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever 
things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever 
things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever 
things are of good report, if there be any praise, think on 
these things." ^ 

Fourthly. The difficulty in certain cases of baptism stated 
in the Scriptures, upon the supposition that immersion was 

"2«ro exception was allowed in any case, even when the most timid 
and delicate female importunately desired it. This fact is established, not 
only by the most direct and unequivocal statements, and that by a num- 
ber of writers, but also by the narration of a number of curious particu- 
lars connected with this practice." Dr. Miller. " It is notorious and 
admits of no contradiction, that baptism of those days of immersion was 
administered to men, icomen, and children, in puris naturalilms, naked 
as Adam and Eve before the fall," <fec. <fec. Cyril of Jerusalem testifies 
the same thing: ''As soon as ye came into the baptistery, ye put off your 
clothes, * * * and being thus divested, ye stood imitating Christ, who 
was naked upon the cross. * * * A wonderful thing ! ye were naked in 
the sight of men, and were not ashamed," &c. Dr. Stuart, Bib. Rep., 
No. 18, p. 38.0. 

2 Philip, iv. 8. 

10* 



114 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



the mode adopted^ is avoided upon the presumption that 
sprinkling or pouring was practised in those cases. That 
mode is the most proper which most easily removes the diffi- 
culties connected with many cases of baptism mentioned in 
the Scriptures. We shall consider the prominent instances 
of this character. 

(1.) The baptism of the three thousand on the day of 
Pentecost. 

First, we want time for the baptism of so large a number 
by immersion. Peter commenced his sermon ^Hhe tJih^d 
hour in the day/^ that is, 9 o^ clock in the morning, the Jew- 
ish hour of morning prayer, and must have preached at least 
one hour, for in addition to what is recorded of his sermon, 
it is stated, that " he exhorted and testified with many other 
words/' The awakened thousands are next to be instructed, 
the confessions of the converted are to be received and 
examined, and three thousand are selected from the multi- 
tude. Arrangements are now to be made for their baptism, 
or formal initiation into the Christian church ; and as they 
had left home without the most distant idea of being con- 
verted and baptized, they were utterly unprepared for the 
ordinance, upon the supposition that it was administered by 
immersion, and so much delay must be had before the proper 
raiment can be obtained — ^unless we suppose they were bap- 
tized without clothing altogether, or that they remained on 
the ground during the public exercises, or returned home 
soaked and dripping in their wet clothes. And then apart- 
ments adjacent to the place of baptism are to be provided 
respectively for the men and women. To these considera- 
tions may be added the great deal of delay and inconvenience 
occasioned in the baptism of the females, especially as they 
had not come prepared with suitable apparel for a speedy 
administration. Before all these preparations for the cere- 
mony could be made, four hours at least must elapse, and it 



COLLATERAL PROOFS. 115 



is 1 o'clock before a single person is baptized. Now tbe 
Jewish day closed at 6 P. M., and the three thousand were 
baptized ^^ the same day/^ Here then we have Jive hours, 
that is, three hundred minutes, in which twelve apostles are 
to baptize three thousand persons, or one hundred every ten 
minutes, or Jl/ti/ every Jive minutes, which allows one minute 
and twelve seconds for each baptism, and all this is to be 
done without the loss of a second. It was absolutely im- 
possible. In the present day, it requires at least foitr 
minutes to dispose of a case of immersion with decency ; and 
upon this basis, the twelve apostles would have required one 
thousand minutes, or sixteen hours and four minutes, to im- 
merse three thousand persons ; and all this is to be done 
without the loss of a second ; and to have done this must 
have required them to stand in the water during the re- 
mainder of the day, and the subsequent night, till four Tni- 
nutes after 5 o'clock in the morning of the next day: and yet 
they had but five hours for the work, and all this was done 
^' the same day.^' We repeat, it was absolutely impossible. 
Besides, the apostles had not physical strength adequate to 
immerse so large a number in so short a time. The time is 
so limited that they have not a moment to rest and take 
breath. ^^ A gentleman of veracity told the writer that he 
was once present when forty-seven were dipped in one day, 
in the usual way. The first operator began, and went 
through the ceremony, until he had dipped ticenty-five per- 
sons ; when he was so fatigued that he was compelled to 
give it up to the other, who with great apparent difficulty 
dipped the other twenty-two. Both appeared completely 
exhausted, and went off the ground, into a house hard by, 
to change their clothes and refresh themselves.'^ Scripture 
Directory for Baptism by a Layman, 14. " We have just 
seen an article in the Philadelphia North American, con- 
taining an account of the recent revival in Cincinnati^ in 



116 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



which we find the following remarks : "A gentleman in- 
forms us he saw eiglity-Jive adults receive at one time the 
ordinance of baptism, when the officiating clergyman was 
obliged to desist through exhaustion j although a large number 
of other candidates were in attendance." Kurtz on Inf. 
Baptism, pp. 227, 228. If in the present day, with all its 
facilities and improvements for immersing, three men could 
not immerse one hundred and thirty-two without exhaustion, 
how was it possible for one apostle to immerse tivo hundred 
and fifty in five hours ? The apostles were but men, and 
to suppose that they could immerse three thousand persons 
in five hours, is to invest them with supernatural physical 
energy — a supposition extravagant in the extreme. Indeed, 
the Baptists concede all this indirectly in their strenuous 
effort to prove that the " seventy disciples'' assisted on this 
occasion. But the proof is all against them on this point 
also. In Luke x. we have an account of the call and com- 
mission of the " seventy," but no evidence that they were 
invested with authority to baptize; indeed, Christian bap- 
tism was not at this time introduced, and when it was origin- 
ally introduced by Christ aftei- his resurrection, authority 
to administer it was vested in the apostles only, by them to 
be transmitted to men whom they judged worthy to take the 
office of the ministry. ^^ Lay hands suddenly on no man," 
was an apostolic injunction with reference to ordination. 
Now only ten days intervened between the commission of 
the apostles and the day of Pentecost, and Christ himself 
commanded them to suspend the exercise of all apostolic 
prerogative till the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of 
Pentecost. '' Behold, I send the promise of my Father upon 
you : hut tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye he en- 
dued with power from on high.'' Luke xxiv. 49. " And 
Christ being assembled together with them, commanded 
them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, hut wait 



COLLATERAL PROOFS. 117 



for the promise of the Father — and ye shall receive power , 
after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you." Acts i. 4, 8. 
This power they received on the day of Pentecost : "There- 
fore being by the right hand of Grod exalted, and having 
received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, h^ 
hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear." Acts ii. 
33. Now they were to go forth, "and teach all nations, 
baptizing them in the name, &c. — beginning at Jerusalem." 
Matt, xxviii. 19. Luke xxiv. 47. Before this time, viz. 
the day of Pentecost, the apostles themselves had not received 
authority to open the Christian dispensation, and administer 
baptism, its initiating ordinance, and they received this 
authority themselves by the baptism, of the Holy Ghost: 
" Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days 
hence." Acts i. 5. Now as the apostles themselves had not 
authority to administer Christian baptism before the day of 
Pentecost, they certainly could not at this time confer this 
authority upon any one else, and we have no evidence that 
the apostles ordained any one to the work of the ministry 
during the ten days that intervened between their commis- 
sion and the day of Pentecost. Matthias, it is true, was 
" numbered with the eleven apostles," but he was selected 
by the Holy Ghost, " that he might take part of this ministry 
and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell." 
Acts i. 25. Matthias only then was added to " the eleven" 
to do the work of " teaching" and " baptizing" on the day 
of Pentecost. We have not one word of evidence that " the 
seventy" were ordained by the apostles to this work on the 
day of Pentecost ; and not having been ordained to this work 
before the day of Pentecost, they could not assist the apostles 
in baptizing the ^^ three thousand.'^ The supposition there- 
fore that they did assist the apostles in this work, is unrea- 
sonable and untenable. 

Secondly, we want a suitable place for the immersion of 



118 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



SO large a number. Neither at the temple, nor in any part 
of Jerusalem, was there a suitable place. The pool of 
Bethesda, which lay but a little to the north-east of the 
temple, and was used for cleansing the temple, the sacrifices, 
^c, and into which all the blood and offals and filth from 
the temple and sacrifices were washed, was unsuitable for 
immersing. Indeed, had it been a suitable place, it con- 
tained at this season of the year, when no rain fell, too little 
water for the immersion of three thousand persons in the five 
hours. Besides, had it been a suitable place, and had it 
contained water enough for the demand, the use of it could 
not have been obtained for the purpose of administering 
Christian baptism, for it was in the possession of the Jewish 
priests, the undisguised and mortal enemies of Christ, and 
who never could have been prevailed upon to surrender it 
to what they would have considered a most sacrilegious per- 
version from its original use. Moreover, had it been a suita- 
ble place, and had it contained an adequate amount of water 
for the demand, it is not presumable that the use of it could 
have been obtained by the apostles at this time, for the 
"■ evening sacrifice'^ came on between three and four o'clock 
in the afternoon, when the priests would have a sacred use 
for the pool themselves — the very time occupied by the 
apostles in baptizing. When, therefore, we take into con- 
sideration the nature of Bethesda, the season of the year, 
the prejudice of the priests, and the time of the day, 
Bethesda must be excluded as the place in which the three 
thousand were immersed, if they were immersed on the day 
of Pentecost. 

The brook Kedron, or Cedron, flowed along the east side 
of the city, and was a turbid, unimportant stream, and 
always dry ^'except in winter." Jahn, § 19, p. 20. The 
winter in Palestine is over toward the close of February. 
But the three thousand were baptized in May or the be- 



COLLATERAL PROOFS 119 



ginning of June; and hence they could not have been 
baptized in Kedron, unless they were baptized as the Israel- 
ites were in the Red Sea — on " dry land.'' It was but a 
hrooh, not a large and noble river, and according to the best 
authority, ^^it is dry at least nine months in the year/' 
Watson. 

The only remaining water in or about Jerusalem, which 
the Baptists might suppose to have answered for the pur- 
pose of immersion, was the pool of Siloam, or Shiloah. 
This was rather a fountain that flowed at the base of Mount 
Moriah, between the city and the brook Kedron ; and it is 
easy to see that a mere fountain is not adequate for the im- 
mersion of three thousand in five hours. Besides, this pool 
02 fountain was three-fourths of a mile from where the 
apostles were teaching, and the people were assembled ; and 
we have no evidence that the apostles and the multitude 
marched off to this fountain for the purpose of immersion. 
The " lavers in the temple'' and " bathing-places in private 
houses" in the city, it has been contended, might have been 
used by the apostles on this occasion. Nothing can be con- 
ceived of more improbable than this. The concerted and ma- 
lignant opposition of the priests would have baffled the 
apostles in the direction to the temple ; besides, the priests 
themselves had a sacred use for the lavers at the very time 
the apostles were baptizing. Moreover, the lavers, had they 
been surrendered, were insufficient in number and size for 
the immersion of three thousand in five hours. And as to 
the ^' baths in private houses" — these were confined to the 
rich and honorable, few of whom were as yet friendly to 
the cause of Christ : and had they been tendered, it is in- 
conceivable how baths enough could have been hunted up, 
and three thousand persons distributed and baptized in 
various parts of the city, by twelve persons, in five hours. 
And as to the river Jordan, it was sixteen or eighteen miles 



120 THE MODi?i OF BAPTISM. 



distant from the city of Jerusalem, where all these persons 
were converted; and Jordan m out of the question this time 
at least. 

Thirdly, there is not one fbct stated in the sacred history 
of this solemn occasion, that famishes the remotest inference 
that the three thousand were immersed ; and therefore we 
may conclude that they were not immersed. Had the 
apostles laid the singular stress on the mode of baptism with 
which the Baptists invest it, they would certainly have 
specified it just as clearly as they have the great and im- 
portant events of this occasion — especially as it was the 
opening of the Christian dispensation. But not one word 
on the subject of mode. 

From all the circumstances of the case, we see immersion 
necessarily excluded, because it was absolutely impracticable. 
The only practicable mode was affiision, that is, sprinkling 
or pouring, and this, agreeably to a well-known Jewish cus- 
tom, could have been done in a very short time by the 
apostles, with bunches of hyssop, as they passed through the 
multitude, and repeated the prescribed form of Christian 
baptism. All the difficulties above vanish upon the suppo- 
sition that the three thousand were baptized by sprinkling 
or pouring, and therefore the inference is strongly in favor 
of these modes as the apostolic practice. 

(2.) The multitudes baptized by John. The whole period 
of his ministry did not exceed ten months. Deduct from 
this period the time employed in preaching preparatory to bap- 
tizing each day ; the time required in removing from place to 
place; occasional foul weather; forty-three Sabbaths, during 
which the Jews considered it unlawful to baptize, — and we 
shall have remaining for the exercise of John's ministry, in 
all, upon a fair calculation, two hundred and twenty-seven 
days. Now from calculations made, " John baptized in all 
about three million persons. The whole time engaged in 



COLLATERAL PROOFS. 121 



baptizing, as it is supposed, did not exceed one thousand three 
hundred and sixty-two hours. Therefore John must have 
baptized, in one hour, two thousand two hundred and two ; 
in one minute, thirty-sixj or a little over one in every two 
seconds. And he must have pursued these labors in the 
same rapid ratio during six hours per day, for the space of 
two hundred and twenty-seven days."^ What physical 
strength would have been adequate to such labor for such 
a length of time ? The practicability of baptizing by im- 
mersion, the " prodigious multitudes that flocked to John'' 
for baptism, appeared to Robert Hall a great difficulty, which 
he could only remove by supposing, without a particle of 
Scripture testimony, that John was assisted by coadjutors. 
^^ It is by no means certain, however," says he, " that John 
was the only person who performed the ceremony ; indeed, 
when we consider the prodigious multitudes, it seems scarcely 
practicable ; he most probably employed coadjutors," &c.* 
Mr. Hall certainly knew that John did not abolish Jewish 
rites, and from his knowledge of Jewish rites, he might have 
found out a much easier mode of removing the difficulty, 
without the necessity of such assistance. We will direct the 
reader's attention to a Jewish rite, by which John, in so 
Bhort a time, could have baptized three million persons by 
sprinkling or pouring. The task is easy. The reader must 
bear in mind that John was invested with no authority to 
abolish Jewish rites, and hence he adopted a Jewish cu^om 
on this occasion. " The Jews had a mode of purifying the 
people by dipping a bunch of hyssop into water, and sprin- 
kling it on the people. So it is said of Moses, ' When he 
had spoken every precept to the people according to the law, 
he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet 
wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the 

3 Hibbard on Baptism— Mode, p. 23. " HaU's Works, vol. i. 361. 

11 



122 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



people.' ^ Now, it is worthy of remark, that the people, at 
this time, numbered six hundred thousand warriors, which, 
reckoning five of the common people to one warrior, leaves 
a round number of three millions of persons. These Moses 
sprinkled. The occasion was the most sublime and imposing 
recorded in the Old Testament. But if Moses dedicated the 
people to Grod by sprinkling, and if such forms of consecra- 
tion were familiar to the Jews, and if John adopted a Jew- 
ish rite for the purpose of his ministry, then, evidently, we 
may suppose he sprinkled the people with a hyssop branch 
dipped in the water.'' ^ Mr. Wesley is of the same opinion. 
^^ It seems that they stood in ranks on the edge of the river, 
and John, passing along before them, cast water on their 
heads or faces, by which means he might baptize many thou- 
sands in a day." '' On this ground, therefore, we conclude 
that the immense multitudes who were baptized by John, 
might receive the ordinance with comparatively little labor 
and trouble ; indeed, on this ground only, in so short a time, 
could one man initiate three million of Jews under the new 
dispensation. 

(3.) The third case is that of the jailer. 

First. We want time, upon the supposition that he was 
immersed. The earthquake came at midnight — and alarmed, 
awakened, and converted, the jailer is baptized '^ straight- 
way" that is, ^^ in the same hour of the night." (Yer. 33.) 
Preliminary to his baptism, a short time is employed in in- 
structing him, '^ for they spake unto him the word of the 
Lord, and to all that were in his house" — oMa. (Yer. 32.) 
" And he took them the same hour of the night and washed 
their stripes," (ver. 33,) — some time was required for this. 
Upon being roused from sleep, and examining the prison 



5 Heb. ix. 19. ^ Hibbaxd on Baptism— Mode, pp. 25, 26. 

7 Notes, Matt. iii. 6. 



COLLATERAL PROOFS. 123 



doors, and " seeing them open/' and " calling for a ligKt/' 
and " bringing out Paul and Silas" from the " inner prison/' 
he must have consumed more time. And after all this, 
what portion of the '^hour^^ had the apostles to go out with 
the jailer, and his whole family, in search of a river, or 
brook, or pond, or any place suitable for immersion ? 

But, secondly, admitting that there was time enough for 
immersion, is it probable that the jailer would have gone out 
of the prison, leaving '^all the doors opened, and every one's 
bands loosed," (ver. 26,) so that all the prisoners might 
attempt to escape under cover of the night ? Such a suppo- 
sition is not consistent with the prudence and integrity of 
the new convert. 

Or, thirdly, is it probable that the jailer and his family, 
upon leaving the prison with the apostles, could hope to 
elude the guard that surrounded the building, now excited 
to the utmost vigilance by the earthquake ? 

Or, fourthly, is it probable that Paul and Silas would 
have connived at a violation of duty on the part of the jailer, 
and thus exposed him to death, the penalty of the violation ? 
According to the Koman law the jailer would have forfeited 
his life had he taken the prisoners out of the prison. And 
thus, when he supposed the prisoners gone, he drew his 
sword, and was about to kill himself, when Paul, acquainted 4 
with the Roman law, exclaimed, " Do thyself no harm, for 
we are all here." 

Or, fifthly, is it probable that Paul and Silas would have 
connived at the violation of the plain principles of the gospel 
in reference to such cases, and which Paul himself has stated 
so clearly ? " Let every soul be subject unto the higher 
powers ; for there is no power but of Grod ; the powers that 
be are ordained of Grod. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the 
power, resisteth the ordinance of Grod j and they that resist 



124 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



shall receive to themselves damnation.'^ » ^' p^t them in 
mind to be subject to principalities, and powers, to obey 
magistrates/' &g.^ 

Or, sixthly, is it probable that Paul and Silas would have 
been accomplices in the violation of the laws of Grod and 
man ? 

Or, seventhly, is it probable that Paul and Silas stole out 
clandestinely at midnight, when the next day they refused 
to depart " privily ?" Would it have been consistent with 
the character of the noble and upright Paul, to have left the 
prison at midnight, in a dishonorable manner, and the next 
day demand as his right that he be dismissed in an honor- 
able manner ? "Would such insincerity have been in character 
with the dignity and purity of an apostle ? 

Or, eighthly, regarding all the circumstances as unfavor- 
able to immersion out the jail, is it probable that the jailer 
and all his family were immersed in the jail ? Is it probable, 
that among the wretched accommodations of a Roman jail, 
there were large pools, or convenient bathing vessels, which 
might be used for the purpose of immersion ? And as to ^^a 
private bath in the jail'' — the old and convenient hypothe- 
sis — Philippi was in latitude 41° north — " a climate in which 
baths are little used," except by persons in the " possession 
«of the luxuries of wealth." That there was a private bath 
in the jail is altogether hypothetical — that one was in the 
possession of the jailer is wholly improbable. And add to 
all these the improbability that the jailer and all his family, 
roused suddenly from sleep, were, either in or out of the jail, 
immersed at midnight, specially the females, if there were 
any, greatly to the inconvenience of all the parties concerned, 
the detriment of their health, an offence to modesty, and a 
work of hurry and confusion inconsistent with the solemn 



8 Rom. xiii. 1, 2. 9 Titus iii. 1. 



COLLATERAL PROOFS. 125 



administration of the ordinances of Christianity — and im- 
mersion in the case of the jailer and his family, is totally 
out of the question. But all these difficulties in the way of 
his baptism will vanish if we admit that it was done by 
sprinkling or pouring, which might have been done with a 
part of the water with which he " washed their stripes/' for 
in the very hour he washed their stripes, he was baptized : 
" And he took them the same hour of the night, and loashed 
their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his, straightway^' 
— immediately — on the spot. (Yer. 33.) The conclusion is in- 
evitable, that the jailer and his family were not only bap- 
tized within the prison, but that the mode of baptism adopted 
by the apostles was either sprinkling or pouring.^'' 

(4.) The next case we shall notice is the baptism of Cor- 
nelius and his friends. In this case there is no specific 
reference made to any mode of baptism, and immersion is 
wholly out of the question. 

Fu'st. The sole design in recording this case is to show 
the progress of Christianity among the Gentiles. Cornelius 
and his friends were Gentiles, and first converted to Grod, 
under the preaching of Peter, and thus having become mem- 
bers of Christ's mystical body, they were entitled to formal 
initiation into the Christian church. Hence, Peter inquires, 
" Can any man forbid water, that these should not he bap- 
tized, which have received the Holy Grhost as well as we^" 

. '° Dr. A. Clark observes respecting the baptism of the jailer : "And by 
the way, if he and all his were baptized straightway, immediately, in- 
stantly, at that very time, dum ipsa res agitur, it is by no means likely 
that there was any immersion in the case ; indeed, all the circumstances 
of the case, the dead of the night, the general agitation, the necessity of 
despatch, and the words of the text, all disprove it. The apostles, there- 
fore, had another method of administering baptism besides immersion, 
which, if practised according to th& Jewish formalities, must have re- 
quired considerable time, and not a little publicity." Commentary, note. 
Acts xvi. 32. 

11* 



126 THE MODE OE BAPTISM. 



Acts X. 47. That is, Christ the founder of the Christian 
church, has instituted water haptism as the sensible formal 
initiatory rite into the Christian church : these Gentiles 
have received the Holy G-host as well as we Jews have : 
they have therefore as good a right to association with the 
Christian church as we Jews have : can any man therefore, 
whether Jew or Gentile, forbid that they should be baptized, 
or deny them the right to enjoy, with us Jews, the privileges 
of the Christian church, since they give the most satisfactory 
proof that they are the subjects of regenerating grace, and 
are recognised by God himself as already associated with us 
in the spmY-w a/ -<3hurch of Christ? for "while Peter yet 
spake, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the 
word,'^ (ver. 44,) and " they heard them speak with tongues, 
and magnify God.'' (Yer. 46.) At this the Jews were 
astonished, for it was a maxim with the Jews that the 
shechinahy or Divine Spirit, could not be communicated to 
the Gentiles : " and they of the circumcision (Jews) which 
believed, were astonished, as many as came with Peter, 
because that on the Gentiles ALSO loas poured the gift of the 
Holy Ghost'' (Yer. 45.) " Then answered Peter, can any 
man forbid icaterj that these should not be haptized," — should 
not be formally initiated into the Christian church, — " who 
have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we ?" — ^who have as 
good a title to baptism as loe have ? " And he commanded 
them to be baptized^' — to be formally and sacramentally 
recognised as members of the Christian church. (Yer. 48.) 
That this is the proper interpretation of this case is evident 
from the subsequent chapter, which begins : " And the 
apostles and brethren that were in Judea heard that the 
Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when 
Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the cir- 
cumcision (Jews) contended loith him, saying, Thou wentest 
in to men uncircumcised," &c. (xi. 1-3.) Peter then goes 



COLLATERAL PROOFS. 127 



into a defence of the whole proceeding, and thus concludes : 
^' Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did 
unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus ; what was I, that I 
could withstand God? When they heard these things, 
they held their peace, and glorified God, saying. Then hath 
God, ALSO TO THE Gentiles, granted repentance unto life." 
(Yer' 17, 18.) Peter then did right in baptizing the Gentile 
believers, because the gospel extended to the Gentiles as 
well as Jews. This is the great doctrine taught in the hap- 
tism of Cornelius and his friends, and this is the sole design 
contemplated in recording their baptism. 

Secondly. As to the mode of baptism in this case, there 
is not the remotest allusion to immersion. No preparations 
are made to leave the spot — no proposition is made to do so 
— no preparations are made for immersion on the spot — no 
public pool, or pond, or fountain, or river, or private bath, is 
referred to — no " watery grave'^ is mentioned — no reference 
is made even to water, except to the possibility that some 
might " forbid' ' the use of it in Christian baptism; — and con- 
sequently, in the absence of all the circumstances favorable 
to immersion, we cannot infer that immersion was practised 
on this occasion. 

Thirdly. The force of inference is opposed to immersion. 
Peter was now in the house of Cornelius. ^^ Cornelius the 
centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good 
report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from 
God by a holy angel, to send for thee into his house," &c." 
"And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him,'' &c. 
(x. 25.) "And as he talked with him, he went in," ka. 
(Ver. 27.) Ini\iQ house, then, Peter preached ; and, in the 
house, as he preached, Cornelius and his friends were con- 
verted; and ^'then," in the house, at the time, "he eom- 

" Acts X. 22. 



128 THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 



manded tliem to be baptized/' and the inference is, that they 
were baptized on the spot, by sprinkling or pouring. All 
the known circumstances at least are in favor of these modes 
of baptism, while they present singular diiO&culties to the 
theory of exclusive immersion. 

Fourthly. If the phrase, " can any man forbid water, that 
these should not be baptized,' ' implies that immersion was 
intended, then it proves too much for the Baptists ; for they 
assume that immersion was universally enjoined and practised 
by the apostles. Why then was it supposed by Peter that 
^^ awif^ would object to immersion on this occasion ? But 
" the apostles and brethren in Judea,'' as we have seen, did, 
at first, object to the baptism of Cornelius and his friends — 
therefore, on the hypothesis of the Baptists, '^ the apostles^' 
themselves objected to immersion as the m^ode of baptism in 
the case before us ! — a conclusion which the Baptists cannot 
escape, unless they ado]f)t the interpretation we have given 
above; and if they adopt that — and they cannot reject it 
consistently with a fundamental doctrine of the Bible — they 
relinquish all hope to support immersion from the baptism 
of Cornelius and his friends. 

(5.) The next instance we shall notice is that of Saul of 
Tarsus. As in the case of Cornelius and his friends, there 
is not a single circumstance connected with the baptism of 
Saul of Tarsus in favor of immersion, but all to the contrary. 
The simple scriptural account is to be analyzed. 

First. It is probable that he was baptized in the house of 
Judas. " And the Lord said unto him. Arise, and go into 
the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house 
of Judas for one called Saul of Tarsus : for, behold, he 
prayeth." ^ Here Ananias finds him : " And Ananias went 
his way, and entered into the house ; and putting his hands 

12 Acts ix. 11. 



COLLATERAL PROOFS. 129 



on him, said/^ &c. (Yer. 17.) It is to be remembered that 
Paul had not eaten nor drunk any thing for three days : 
" and he was three days without sight, and neither did eat 
nor drink.^' (Yer. 9.) And so Ananias finds him lying down, 
and in a state of extreme debility. It is improbable there- 
fore that, in this state of debility, he left the house for the 
purpose of being immersed; and we may rationally infer 
that he was baptized in the house, which inferentially ex- 
cludes immersion. 

Secondly. It is improbable that, in this state of debility, he 
was immersed at all. Prudence would have suggested delay 
at least till he should have recovered strength adequate to 
the process of immersion. But he is baptized the same day. 

Thirdly. It is stated,^' He arose and was baptized^^ — ^pro- 
perly, " he standing up — dvaaraq — was baptized.^^ Not, that 
"he arose,^^ went out, sought a stream, and was "buried in a 
watery grave ;"" but that he stood iijp, in the house, and ivas 
baptized — a simple statement that justifies the inference 
that, in his weakened state, occasioned by a long and rigid 
fast, unable to leave the house, and too feeble to bear plung- 
ing in water in the house, he was baptized on the spot by 
sprinkling or pouring water on his head. This word is the 
second indefinite participle from the verb anistemi, and, in 
the Acts of the Apostles, is translated twice, arise — eight 
times, arose — and four times, stood up. It never conveys 
the idea of motion from a place, but the action'of rising up, 
or standing — nothing more ; and as no word is employed 
with it signifying that Paul left the house, the inference is 
clear that Paul was standing on his feet when he was bap- 
tized, which utterly excludes the idea of immersion, and 
favors that of perfusion. 

(6.) The last case we shall notice, is 1 Peter iii. 20, 21 : 
" The long-sufiering of God waited in the days of Noah, 
while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is eight 



130 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



souls, were saved "by water. The like figure whereunto even 
baptism doth now save us, (not the putting away of the filth 
of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward 
G-od,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." We shall dis- 
miss this objection with a few words. 

First. The apostle at a single stroke destroys the argument 
of all who contend for mere mode, or the quantity of the 
water, or the physical eficct of water, as essential to baptism. 
^^ Not the jputting away of the filth of the fiesh^' — not the 
letter, but the substance — not the act, but the thing signified 
by baptism, saves us. 2. Immersion, as a mode of baptism, 
cannot be intended in this passage as saving; for Noah and 
those with him floated in the ark above the waters. 3. Im- 
mersion in this case proved fatal to the antediluvians, as in 
the case of the Egyptians in the Ked Sea. 4. Immersion 
was the very evil from which the ark effected deliverance. 
5. If the mode of baptism may be inferred from this passage, 
it must be sprinTcling, for the ark was borne on the surface 
of the water, and sprinhled with the j'ain that fell from 
heaven. 6. "Wherever baptism is referred to in the Scrip- 
tures, in connection with water or not, the Baptists invaria- 
bly find immersion. John is found at Jordan — therefore he 
immersed. John is found ^^ heyond Jordan" — therefore he 
immersed. John is found at Enon — therefore he immersed. 
John baptized " with water" — therefore he immersed. The 
twelve apostles baptized three thousand persons in Jerusalem, 
the same day — therefore they were immersed. The jailer 
was baptized in the jail — therefore he was immersed. Both 
Philip and the eunuch went down into, and came up out of 
the water — therefore one, and not the other, was immersed. 
Lydia was baptized at a prayer-meeting — therefore she was 
immersed. Cornelius was baptized in his house — therefore 
he was immersed. Saul was baptized in the house of Judas 
— therefore he was immersed. ^'"We are buried by baptism 



COLLATERAL PROOFS. 131 



into death! ^ — therefore we are to be immersed. The Israel- 
ites were ^^ baptized unto Moses in the cloud, and in the sea" 
— therefore they were immersed — though they were on ^^dry 
land!' And so Noah and those with him were immersed — 
though the ark floated at the time on the water ^ and was 
sprinkled by the rain that fell from heaven. In all these 
examples, tJie fact of baptism is all that is intended or is 
important ; the mode is non-essential, and is a matter of in- 
ference, and consequently altogether optional with the subject 
of baptism. 

We have omitted in this category the case of the eunuch, 
since we have considered it at length in the preceding parts 
of this work. 

Fifthly. Among collateral proofs in favor of sprinkling and 
pouring, may be mentioned the disposition of the Baptists 
to make a new version of the Bible, in the translation of 
SaTZTi^w. This is an open confession that the advantage 
fairly obtained from the word, as it stands in our translation, 
is not satisfactory to them, though they say, '' any one who 
reads can understand." Why then desire to change it? 
Are immersionists the only clear-headed and honest men in 
the world? Will they not admit, that there are others 
besides themselves who are possessed of classic knowledge 
sufficient to examine and translate the original Grreek and 
Hebrew, and of moral honesty too, to publish their convic- 
tions to the world? Why then change the translation? 
Pardon me, my brethren. Luther wished the Epistle of 
James torn out of the Bible and burned up, because it opposed 
his doctrine of faith without works ; but afterward, when he 
was taught better, he admitted the genuineness and ac- 
knowledged the authority of this epistle. Mr. Jewett, a 
clergyman who left the Presbyterian Church and joined the 
Baptists, says, in a book published by him on baptism—- 
"Had the translators of our version possessed the light 



132 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



wliicli tlie labors of eminent philologists during the last fifty 
years have thrown over this subject, they would have found 
themselves obliged, in conscience, to translate the word hap- 
tizo, immerse, in all cases; and they would not have con- 
sented to adopt it, instead of translating it, thus concealing 
the mind of the Spirit. Nay, more, had not King James, 
under the advice of the bishops, virtually ordered the trans- 
lators not to translate the words relating to baptism, I believe 
it morally certain that that learned and pious assembly, 
acting even under the inferior light which they enjoyed, 
would have rendered the word in every instance in accord- 
ance with the views maintained in this discourse." ^ In the 
first place, this opinion is wholly gratuitous. Secondly, it 
is an unmerited reflection upon the intelligence and moral 
honesty of the translators, King James, and the bishops. 
And in the thu'd place, this reflection is made by an ordinary 
man, who has written a small book on baptism, made up 
principally of quotations and opinions from authors on the 
subject, a thousand times refuted ; and consequently involving 
in principle the reputation of his own book long before it 
appeared. 

If the Baptists should succeed in changing our good old 
English version, they ought also to change their own name 
from " Baptists" to ^^ Immersionists," and to surrender a 
name of which they have boasted ever since their origin. 
For unless they should change their name, to correspond to 
the new version, their heathen converts would inquire, what 
dees this mean ? You are Baptists, why are you not caUed 
Immersionists ? And then if they should change their 
name, their heathen converts would find out, that for a long- 
time, they were called Baptists, and would inquire, why was 
the original name ^' Baptists" ever changed, if it was clear 
that " haptizd" meant to immerse ? 

13 Third ed. p. 63- 



UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS. 183 



Sixthly. Among collateral proofs in favor of sprinkling 
and pouring, may be mentioned also the disposition of im- 
mersionists to destroy the argument from analogy between 
the baptism of the Holy G-host and external baptism, by 
denying and attempting to disprove the baptism of the Holy 
Ghost altogether.** This effort clearly proves, that the 
force of analogy between the two modes is unfavorable to the 
views of the Baptists. For why assail so boldly a funda- 
mental doctrine of salvation — ^the baptism of the Holy Grhost 
— ^if there is no resemblance between the modes of spiritual 
and water baptisms ? This daring adventure is an admission 
equivalent to a triumphant argument in favor of the validity 
of sprinkling and pouring, while it displays a reckless pre- 
sumption in the professed friends of the Bible, surpassed 
only by the intolerant and inveterate opposition of the 
avowed and insidious enemies of the Cross. 



CHAPTER YI. 

UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS. 

We continue the examination of the collateral proofs in 
favor of sprinkling and poui'ing as the most proper modes of 
baptism. 

Seventhly. Almost all the learning and piety of the 
Christian church, from the days of the apostles to the present 
time, have advocated and practised the modes of sprinklyig 
and pouring, and opposed the doctrine oi exclusive immersion. 
This argument is accumulative in its strength; and as time 
refutes error and confirms the truth, we may regard the 

14 This remark has reference principally to the CampbeUites — a misera- 
hle heresy, to -which we shall refer again hereafter. 

12 



134 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



testimony of the church for eighteen hundred years as sub- 
stantial ground for the continuation of the practice of sprin- 
kling and pouring at the present time. Not a fiftieth part 
of all the Protestants in the world believe in the exclusive- 
ness of immersion ; and Dr. Kurtz, of the Lutheran Church, 
says, ^^ probably not one-sixtieth part practise immersion." 
The Baptists sometimes claim the practice of the Greek 
church in favor of their views, and yet the Greek Church 
practises trine immersion, and maintains that baptism in 
this form is absolutely necessary. Besides, after these im- 
mersions, they sprinkle the subject. So that, in no respect, 
can the Greek Church be adduced in support of the claims 
of the Baptists. 

Let me here correct one of the most captivating, insidious, 
and extensive impositions ever invented and inflicted on the 
human mind — one, to a great extent, without question, a 
fruitful means in causing doubtful minds to settle down 
finally upon the exclusiveness of immersion — an imposition, 
therefore, to which may be ascribed much of the success of 
the Baptist Church in obtaining accessions to her numbers 
and influence, in all parts of the land where she can impose 
upon those who are destitute both of the discrimination and 
information necessary to baffle the well-contrived design. 
The imposition is this : — The Baptists, in quoting the 
opinions of the church on the subject of the mode of bap- 
tism, very often adduce paedobaptist authors, divines, and 
commentators, as witnesses in favOr of immersion; and in 
doing this, they confound the admissions of the validity of 
immersion as a valid mode, with concessions in favor of 
immersion as the only yalid mode. Nay more; they in- 
geniously blend the admission of paedobaptist authors, di- 
vines, and commentators, with their own bold assumption 
that immersion was the only mode of baptism practised by 
the apostles and the primitive church. 



UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS. 135 



Why do the Baptists, in quoting paedobaptist authorities, 
keep back a part of their opinions, and triumphantly exhibit 
that part which admits the validity of immersion merely as 
a valid mode ? Why do they keep their congregations in 
ignorance on this subject ? Was there ever a more flagrant 
injustice imposed on the public mind ? Let me state the 
case clearly, openly, and fully. The authorities, ancient 
and modern, with some exceptions, admit that immersion 
was an apostolic mode of baptism, but at the same time they 
maintain that it was not the only apostolic mode ; the Bap- 
tists maintain that it was the only apostolic mode : in this 
they differ. The authorities support infant baptism as an 
apostolic practice ; the Baptists do not : in this they differ. 
The authorities oppose ^^ close communion;'' the Baptists 
maintain an^ practise it : in this they differ. And in many 
other respects, the authorities and the Baptists differ as 
materially as in those we have mentioned. Now what have 
we here ? Why, the Baptist Church standing alone ; not 
only unsustained, but opposed, in many respects, by all the 
authorities of the church from the days of Christ till the 
present time ; and especially unsupported, and even opposed, 
in her interpretation of the meaning of the word haptizo, by 
the paedobaptist churches, divines, commentators, classic 
scholars, and the most respectable lexicographers, with but 
a few exceptions, in all ages of the Christian era. To be 
governed entirely by the authorities, the Baptist^ must adopt 
the other modes of baptism also : otherwise they are against 
them. This is a fair view of the whole case ; and it is clear 
that our Baptist brethren, in this matter, deal very unfairly 
with the authorities, with sister churches, with their own 
congregations, and with youj who, at this time, with deep 
solicitude, are forming your opinions on the whole weignt 
of evidence in support of Christian baptism. 

Nor is this all. Almost all the authorities quoted by 



136 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



the Baptists, so far from supporting their exclusiveness on 
the subject of baptism, have written expressly against it. 
Scarcely a psedobaptist author of eminence has existed since 
the origin of the Baptist Church, who has not made the 
most strenuous opposition to the very tenet which is the 
peculiarity of that church, and which distinguishes it from 
the rest of the Christian churches. Many large volumes 
might be compiled from the works of psedobaptists, which 
would not only furnish their unqualified testimony on this 
subject, but, as we believe, would effectually overthrow the 
pretensions of the Baptists to exclusiveness in administering 
the sacraments. Let the opinions of a few represent the 
rest. 

Wall assures us that the first body of men of which we 
find any account, who denied baptism to infants, were the 
Petrobrussians, a sect of the Albigenses, in the former part 
of the twelfth century. Milner afiirms, "a few instances 
excepted, the existence of the anti-pasdobaptists seems 
scarcely to have taken place in the church of Christ, till a 
little after the beginning of the Reformation." Calvin de- 
clares "that the substance of baptism being retained, the 
church, from the beginning, enjoyed the liberty of using 
somewhat different rites." With regard to infant baptism, 
Dr. Doddridge says, ^ no argument can be drawn from these 
words [the great commission] to the prejudice of infant 
baptism." Professor Stuart, after having at large consider- 
ed the subject of sprinkling as compared with immersioUj 
and proved that the former is equally as proper as the latter, 
concludes with the following remarks on infant baptism : — 
" I have only to say, that I believe in both the propriety 
and expediency of the rite thus administered, and therefore 
accede to it ex aniono. Commands, or plain and certain ex- 
amples, in the JVew Testament relative to it, I do not find. 
Nor, with my views of it, do I need them. If the subject 



UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS. 137 



had reference to what is fundamental or essential, in Chris- 
tianity, then I must find either the one or the other in order 
to justify adopting or practising it. But as the case now 
stands, the general analogy of the ancient dispensation ; the 
enlargement of privilege under the gospel; the silence of 
the New Testament on the subject of receiving children into 
a special relation to the church by the baptismal rite, which 
shows, at least, that there was no dispute in the early ages 
relative to this matter; the certainty that in Tertullian's 
days the pi'actice was general ; all these considerations put 
together — united with the conviction that baptism is a sym- 
hol and dedication^ and may be so in the case of infants as 
well as adults, and that it brings parents and children into 
a peculiar relation to the church, and under peculiarly re- 
cognised obligations — ^serve to 'satisfy me fyUy that the 
practice may he and should he continued.^' Is it not sur- 
prising that the Rev. James D. Knowles, professor in the 
Newton Theological Institution, and many others with him, 
should, notwithstanding this clear statement of his views re- 
specting the modes and subjects of baptism, present Professof 
Stuart to the world as a witness in favor of exclusive immer- 
sion ? Professor Knowles quotes the language of Professor 
Stuart as follows : — " After citing the testimony of many 
ancient writers, Professor Stuart says : ' But enough. It is, 
says Augusti, ^^ a thing made out,'^ viz. the ancient practice 
of immersion. So indeed all the writers who have thoroughly 
investigated the subject conclude. I know of no one usage 
of ancient times which seems to be more clearly and cer- 
tainly made out.' I cannot see how it is possible for any 
candid person who examines the subject to deny this." 
Here is not one word in favor of the exclusiveness of the 
Baptists. Professor Stuart admits that immersion was a 
mode, but not the only mode of baptism practised by the 
primitive church ; for he goes on to prove, with equal clear- 

12* 



138 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



ness, that sprinlding also was equally valid, and that infant 
baptism was proper, and obligatory on the Christian church. 
Professor Stuart does not attempt to prove, as the Baptists 
do, that immersion is a positive institution enjoined by 
Christ and his apostles, but his design is to vindicate tht 
occasional practice of immersion by the psedobaptist churci 
from primitive times, through all succeeding ages to th» 
present time, and thus to establish the admissibility of im 
mersion as a baptismal ceremony of the Christian dispensa 
tion. The admission of the validity of a ceremony should 
not be distorted into an acknowledgment of its exclusiveness, 
however anciently it may have been practised. 

Pendleton, in his work on ^' Baptism and Communion," 
represents Professor Stuart as saying that hajf^tizo ^^ means 
only immerse, overwhelm.'' '^ It is worthy of remark," says 
he, " that Professor Stuart, throughout the Greek classics and 
the Septuagint, assigns to the word haptizo only immerse, 
overwhelm,'' p. 30. We will refute this gross misrepresenta- 
tion of the Baptists by referring to the work of Professor 
Ripley, himself a Baptist, who reviewed Professor Stuart's 
essay on the " Mode of Baptism," published in the Biblical 
Repository, April, 1833. He quotes (p. 26) Professor 
Stuart, as follows : '^5. — -To wash, cleanse hy water, where 
^aTzri^a) is used;" and observes, (p. 33,] "the method by 
which Professor Stuart would show that ^aTtri^a} here means 
to cleanse hy water, is liable to objection;" and continues, 
(p. 34,) " I cannot regard the statement as sufficiently sus- 
tained, that ^a7triC,iJD in the Septuagint and Apocrypha means 
simply to wash, to cleanse hy water, without containing any 
reference to the manner, or the extent of the washing." 
Here then, according to Professor Ripley, Professor Stuart 
did not restrict the meaning of ^aTrrc^aj to " immerse, over- 
whelm," as is asserted by Mr. Pendleton. Again, Professor 
Ripley, (p. 55,) quotes Professor Stuart: "We have also 



UNrAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS. 139 



seen in Nos. 2, 5, 6, of examples from the Septuagint and 
Apocrypha, that the word haptizo sometimes means to wash. 
There is then no absolute certainty from usage, that the word, 
when applied to designate the rite of baptism, means of 
course to immerse or plunge.' ' This is conclusive. 

We invite attention to the unfairness of Mr. Booth, in his 
book entitled " Psedobaptism Examined/^ in which he has 
made quotations from nearly a hundred psedobaptist authors 
to support the tenet of exclusive immersion. We shall ex- 
amine his work by the chapter. 

(1.) His quotations from at least twenty learned Psedo- 
baptist authors on the subject of positive institutions, prove 
nothing at all on the subject of the mode of baptism, since 
not one of these quotations was designed by its author to 
bear in the remotest degree upon the mode of baptism. Mr- 
Booth argues from the important principles of positive insti- 
tutions to the mode of baptism, inferring, that the authors 
he quoted had reference to the mode of baptism ; and thus 
his '' seven reflections^' that follow are nothing more than 
false inferences of his own, and palpable perversions of his 
authors. 

(2.) He next adduces the testimonies of eighty-two au- 
thors, concerning the signification of the terms hgptize and 
baptism. In the outset, he is forced in candor to forewarn 
his readers that "no inconsiderable part of his authors assert 
that the word baptize signifies pouring and sprinkling, as 
well as immersion." And he admits at the same time that 
these authors " may be justly numbered among the first lite- 
rary characters that any age has produced," and conse- 
quently were fully capable of judging correctly in the pre- 
mises. Consequently, the authorities adduced do not support 
the dogma of exclusive immersion. 

(8.) His next step is to adduce seventy-five testimonies 
from paedobaptist authors in proof of the design of baptism. 



140 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



Not one of these authors bears testimony that the design of 
baptism can be expressed or set forth only by immersion, 
nor do they all admit the validity of immersion as a mode 
by which the design of baptism may be set forth. Indeed, 
in some instances, immersion is not even mentioned or re- 
ferred to, as in the testimony of Chamierus : " they who are 
baptized represent the death of Christ, and at the same time 
their own." Mr. Booth supposed Chamierus used the term 
^'baptized" synonymously with immersion; and Chamierus 
is in part wrong, for the eucharist represents the death of 
Christ. And in other instances, sj)rinkling is mentioned as 
answering the design of baptism, as in the testimony of 
Surretinus : ^^ As now persons to be baptized are sprinkled 
with water; so they are sprinkled with the blood and spirit 
of Christ to the washing away of sin." All the quotations 
made by Mr. Booth from paedobaptist authors prove nothing 
in favor of exclusive immersion, and whenever Mr. Booth 
differs from his authorities, as he does in many instances, 
of course they are to be regarded as against him. 

(4.) He next adduces ninety-six testimonies to prove that 
the apostolic mode of baptism was immersion. He com- 
mences this chapter also with a candid confession : [" N. B. — 
Candor demands that we should here acknowledge that 
though these numerous and learned authors have expressed 
themselves in the following manner, yet many of them insist 
upon it as highly probable that the apostles did some- 
times administer baptism by pouring or sprinkling."] 
Ordinary candor could not have made a better confession, 
and this confession is fatal to the doctrine of exclusive im- 
mersion. Besides, most of those authors whom Mr. B. 
adduces in proof that the apostolic mode of baptism was 
immersion, and who, as he admits, affirm that the apostles 
did sometimes administer baptism by pouring or sprinkling, 
are also the very authors whom he adduced in the preceding 



UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS. 141 



chapter to prove that the design of baptism could Dp. fully 
set forth only hy immersion ! And thus as these authors 
bear testimony also for sprinkling and pouring, they of 
course maintain that the design of baptism may be repre- 
sented by these modes. Not one of these authors bears 
testimony to the divine institution of immersion as the only 
proper mode of baptism. 

(5.) In the fifth chapter, he refers to the present practice of 
^' the G-reek and oriental churches, in regard to the mode'' of 
baptism. But some of his witnesses bear testimony also to the 
practice of infant baptism, as. Hasselquist : " ^'he Greeks 
christen then* children immediately after their birth,'' &c. And 
Anonymous : " The Muscovite priests plunge their children 
three times over head and ears in water." And one of these 
witnesses bears testimony to trine immersion as the ^^primi- 
tive manner." "9. Dr. J. G-. King: The Greek church 
uniformly practises the trine immersion, undoubtedly the 
most primitive manner." Here Mr. Booth himself admits 
the authority of this testimony to the prevalence of infant 
baptism, for " thirteen ce7ituries ;" so that in his eagerness to 
prove immersion as the apostolic mode, he likewise adduces 
proof to support the apostolic authority of infant baptism, 
and thus at a single stroke overthrows the Baptist Church — 
for where was the Baptist Church all this time ? 

(6.) He next endeavors to prove from the same sources, 
that '^ the design of baptism is more fully expressed by im- 
mersion, than by pouring or sprinkling." Then it is obvious, 
on his own admission, that pouring or sprinkling expresses, 
in some degree, at least, the design of baptism. Mr. Booth's 
witnesses are the same good old authors he adduced in the 
preceding chapters — every one of whom is an advocate for 
sprinkling and pouring as proper modes of baptism, and 
Dr. Wall, one of his authors, has written the most powerful 



142 THE MODE or BAPTISM. 



defence of infant baptism ever known among uninspired 
writers. 

(7.) He attempts to explain " the reasons, rise, and pre- 
Talence of pom-ing or sprinkling, instead of immersion.^' 
And here the following things are obvious. First. Sprin- 
kling or pouring was admitted in certain cases of sickness, 
feebleness, and in cold countries, as Mr. Booth's witnesses 
testify. Secondly. His witnesses likewise prove, by the 
same quotations, the validity of infant baptism. Thirdly. 
One of his witnesses. Dr. Manton, declares that "Chris- 
tianity lieth not in ceremonies ; the principal thing in bap- 
tism is the washing away of sin, that may be done by POUR- 
ING on of water, as well as dipping." Another witness, 
Walaeus, declares that "the ancients, in cold climates, 
generally used aspersion : because a ceremony that is free 
ought always to give way to charity.'' Fourthly. He argues, 
because " infants cannot bear plunging, without the hazard 
of health and life, it is presumptive argument against their 
claim to the ordinance of baptism. Upon the same ground 
adults, in feeble health, have no claim to the ordinance. 
The principle that can be compromised on account of phy- 
sical weakness in adults, can be compromised for the same 
reason in the case of infants : admit- sprinkling as valid, and 
the difficulty vanishes in both cases. But Mr. B. himself 
removes this objection to infant baptism, by quotations from 
medical and philosophical men, attesting that cold ablutions 
are not objectionable on account of infantile weakness. 

The second part oihiB examination of paedobaptism treats 
of " the subjects of baptism," and this we shall also consider 
by the chapter. 

(1.) His thirty -one quotations to prove that there is 
" neither express precept, nor plain example, for paedobap- 
tism, in the New Testament," are nothing more than bold 



UNFAIRNESS OP THE BAPTISTS. 143 



and gross mutilations of the arguments of their authors in 
favor of infant baptism. 

(2.) He asserts that there is ^jno evidence of paedobap- 
tism before the latter end of the second, or the beginning 
of the third century/^ and adduces twelve witnesses, to prove 
it — not one of whom, lived in the first three centuries of the 
Christian era. He passes over in cautious silence all the 
Fathers of this period, all of whom bear positive or indirect 
testimony to the apostolic authority and validity of infant 
baptism. Moreover, in the preceding chapter of his work, 
he had quoted largely from a multitude of authors to prove 
the primitive authority and the general prevalence of im- 
mersion — often intermingling at the same time their testi- 
monies in favor of infant baptism, and yet it is surprising, 
that he overlooked the fact that the same witnesses are as 
credible in the one case as in the other. And when it suits 
him, he argues against his faithful authorities ! They are 
credible, when they testify in his favor — not credible, when 
they oppose him ! In a former chapter. Dr. Wall was 
paraded with his hosts of witnesses for the truth — ^now he is 
singled out as his antagonist ! And why ? Because he ad- 
mits Irenaeus, and other Fathers of the church, in proof of 
the early antiquity, and apostolic origin of infant baptism ! 
He cries out, ^'Is it not strange, is it not quite unaccount- 
able, that such ambiguous words as those .of Irenaeus should 
be considered by our opponents as the most explicit of any 
on record, in proof that paedobaptism was practised so early 
as the year 180?" And yet but a few pages after, in con- 
sidering the testimony of Origen, he without hesitation 
^^ allows'' that the ^^ passages'' adduced from his writings 
^^ are plain and express to the points Indeed, such is the 
course of argument pursued by Mr. Booth throughout his 
book, that by an analogical method, one might prove from 
the Bible that to murder is a divine command : " Cain rose 



144 



THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 



up against Abel his Ibrotlier, and slew him'^ — "Go thou and 
do likewise/' But after all, his witnesses prove that infant 
baptism was prevalent in the latter end of the second cen- 
tury, and he admits that "the practice of infant baptism 
did prevail in the latter part of the third century/' 

(3.) In the third and last chapter, he adduces several 
testimonies in proof of "the high opinion of the Fathers, 
concerning the utility of baptism" — and many of his wit- 
nesses, such as Luther, G-erhardus, Buddeus, Deylingius, 
Vossius, and Dr. Fiddes, bear testimony to the efficacy of 
baptism in the salvation of infants. 

Mr. Booth pursues just such a course, in his "Paedobap- 
tism Examined," as a certain Danvers in England pursued 
in his " Treatise on Baptism," which was replied to by Mr. 
Walker. The course pursued by Danvers is censured by 
Dr. Wall in the following very just and strong language — 
and every word of it is applicable to the author of "Paedo- 
baptism Examined." " Here by the way," says Dr. Wall, 
"I cannot but take notice how much trouble such an ad- 
venturous author as this Danvers is able to give to such a 
careful and exact answerer as Mr. Walker. Danvers does 
in this place deal with above twenty other writers after the 
same rate as he does with the two I mentioned, viz. Scapula, 
Stephanus, Pasor, Yossius, Leigh, Casaubon, Beza, Chamier, 
Hammond, Cajetan, Musculus, Piscator, Calvin, Keckerman, 
Diodatus, Grrotius, Davenant, Tilenus, Dr. Cave, Wall, Strabo, 
and Tillotson. Mr. Walker shows that he has abused every 
0716 of them'; by affixing to some of them words they never 
said, by adding to others, by altering and mistranslating 
others, and by curtailing the words of the rest." ^ 

Respecting the unfairness of the Baptists in adducing the 
distorted testimony of p^dobaptist writers in proof of the 

1 AVall, vol. ii. 408, 409. 



UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS. 145 



practice of the primitive churchy Dr. Wall himself had oc- 
casion to observe in his History of Infant Baptism : ^^ This 
I have seen done/' says he, ''a, hundred times, when the 
same author that is quoted does sometimes in the same 
treatise, and sometimes in other parts of his works, show 
that infants are to be baptized, as being in a case ttat is 
exempt from the general rule that requires faith, prayer, 
repentance, and other personal preparations." ^ This in- 
justice he experienced at the hand of Mr. G-ale, in his ^^Re- 
flections'' on his work. To which, "Dr. Wall,'' in his "De- 
fence," replies: "After a smoothing compliment, he in the 
next words set up against me one of the falsest accusations 
and most abominable calumnies that in all the seventy years 
of my life was ever thrown upon me by any lewd or slander- 
ous tongue or pen". He makes me a teacher of a false doc- 
trine, contrary to the principles of the church of which I 
am a member, and contrary to what I have always taught 
therein, and contrary to what I declare in many places of 
the book he had before him. A doctrine that was never 
maintained by any Christian [beside the antipsedobaptists 
themselves] but by some late papists; viz. that I ^freely 
allow that it cannot be made to appear from the Scriptures 
that infants are to be baptized.' I have been forced by 
this foul and importunate cavil to look over those places of 
my own book where I do enforce the proof of in/ant baptism 
from several texts of Scripture. I did bring many proofs 
from Grod's word, which stand as so many evidences of the 
falsehood of this false charge against me. Of his untruths, 
I would beforehand instance in one flagrant and manifest 
one (which, as I shall show, he has affirmed above twenty 
times over) his saying, that I have in my book yielded and 
owned that there is no Scripture proof for infant baptism ; 



2 Vol. i. 
13 



146 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



tliough near half his hook he spent in refuting (as well as lie 
can) those proofs which I brought from Scripture."^ 

One more remark on the unfairness of Mr. Jewett. He 
quotes Cahdn in proof of the declaration, '^ that none but 
believers are entitled to baptism.^^* He thus refers to 
Calvin : "Calvin. Because Christ required teaching be- 
fore baptizing, and will have believers only admitted to 
baptism, baptism does not seem to be rightly administered, 
except faith precede.^' Calvin, in this quotation, is referring 
to adult baptism, in which case faith must "precede'' bap- 
tism. But on the subject of infant baptism — and certainly 
infants cannot "believe" — he observes, "as some turbulent 
spirits in the present age have raised fierce disputes, which 
still continue to agitate the church, on the subject of infant 
baptism, I cannot refrain from adding some observations 
with a view to repress their violence." ^ x\.nd he adds, that 
those who affirm that infant baptism was unknown till a 
long time after the resurrection of Christ, " therein lie most 
ahominahly ; for there is no writer so ancient that doth not 
certainly refer the heginning thereof to the age of the apostles.^' 
We bid Mr. Jewett adieu — for the present. 

We proceed next to the vindication of Mr. Wesley, who 
has often been adduced in proof of the dogma of exclusive 
immersion. Copious extracts from his works we now lay 
before the reader. " I made an end of visiting the classes," 
says he, " miserably shattered by showers of strange doc- 
trine. At one I preached at Tipton Green, where the Bap- 
tists also have been making havoc of the flock, which con- 
strained me, in speaking on these words, ^ Arise, and be 
baptized, and wash away thy sins,' to spend some ten mi- 
nutes in controversy, which is more than I had done in pub- 



■■> Wall, vol. iv. 66, 175-177. ^ Jewett on Baptism, p. 102. 

'' Insts. b. iv. c. 16, sec. 1. ^ Wesloy's Works, vol. iii. 510 



UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS. 14' 



lie for many months (perhaps years) before/' ^ And so it 
seems Mr. Wesley, as well as Calvin, met with " turbulent 
spirits who agitated' ' the church on the subject of baptism. 

Referring to the multitudes baptized by John, Mr. Wesley 
says, "Such prodigious numbers could hardly be baptized 
by immersing their whole bodies under water; nor can we 
think they were provided with change of raiment for it, which 
was scarcely practicable for such vast multitudes. And yet 
they could not be immersed naked with modesty, nor in their 
wearing apparel with safety. It seems, therefore, that they 
stood in ranks on the edge of the river, and that John, pass- 
ing along before them, cast water on their heads or faces, 
by which means he might baptize many thousands in a day." ^ 

Concerning " washing of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, 
and couches,'' he observes, "The G-reek word (haptismos') 
means indifferently either washing or sprinkling. The cups, 
pots, and vessels were washed; the couches sprinkled.''^ 

"^And they both went down' — out of the chariot. It 
does not follow that he was baptized by immersion. The 
text neither aflGirms nor intimates anything concerning it."^ 

"'We are buried with him by baptism' — alluding to the 
ancient mode of baptizing by immersion." ^° And here the 
Baptists raise the shout ! But does Mr. Wesley say that 
the only ancient mode of baptizing was immersion ? Did 
he believe it? Assuredly not; or he would have positively 
concluded, as the Baptists do, that the eunuch was im- 
mersed; but on the contrary, he declares that "it does not 
follow that he was baptized by immersion." If he believed 
that the only mode of baptizing among the ancients was im- 
mersion, why does he say that John ^'■cast water on the heads 
and faces^^ of the multitudes whom he baptized ? That Mr. 



'' Notes on New Test. Matt. iii. 6. ^ jfotes, Mark vii. 4. 

» Ibid. Acts viii. 38. w Ibid. Eom. vi. 4 



148 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



Wesley did not believe immersion was the only mode of 
baptism practised anciently, is evident from his note on Col. 
ii. 12; ^'Buried with him in baptism, by which ye also are 
risen with him through faith of the operation of God.^' Mr. 
Wesley comments : ^'The ancient manner of baptizing by 
immersion is as manifestly alluded to here, as the ancient 
manner of baptizing by sprinkling or pouring of water 
is in Heb. x. 22. But,^' he adds, ^'no stress is laid on 
the age of the baptized, or the manner of performing it, in 
one or the other place.'' This is decisive. But we 
continue our references. ^^^And were all baptized unto 
Moses, in the cloud, and in the sea' — perhaps sprinkled 
here and there with drops of water from the sea or cloud, 
by which baptism might be more evidently signified." ^^ In 
his Journal, he observes, " I baptized seven adults, two of 
them by immersion."^ Of course, the other five were bap- 
tized some other way, probably by sprinkling, as his note 
above on 1 Cor. x. 2 enables us to conclude. 

The catholic views of Mr. Wesley on the mode of baptism 
may be obtained from his treatise on Baptism, published in 
the year 1756, and contained in his works, vol. vi. p. 12. 
We make the following extracts. ^'Baptism," says he, ^^is 
performed by washing, dipping, or sprinkling the person in 
the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who is hereby 
devoted to the ever-blessed Trinity. I say by loashingj dip- 
ping, or sprinkling; BECAUSE IT IS NOT DETERMINED in 
Scripture in which of these ways it should be done, 
neither by any express precept, nor by any example 

AS CLEARLY PROVES IT; NOR BY THE FORCE OR MEANING 

OF THE WORD BAPTizo." Beferriug to the washing of cups, 
&c., according to the Jewish custom, he says, "Here, then, 
the word baptism, in its natural sense, is not taken for dip- 

" Notes, 1 Cor. x. 2. ^^ Works, vol. iv. 16, March 21st, 1759. 



UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS. 149 



ping, but for washing or cleansing. And that this is the 
true meaning of the word haptizo, is testified hy the greatest 
scholars, and most proper judges in this matter J' Again : 
^' As there is no clear proof of dipping in Scripture, so there 
is very prohable proof of the contrary. It is highly proba- 
ble THE APOSTLES THEMSELVES baptized great numbers, 
not by dipping, but by washing, sprinkling, or pouring 
water. This clearly represented the cleansing from sin, 
which is prefigured by baptism. And the quantity of water 
was not material — no more than the quantity of bread and 
wine in the Lord's supper/' And so he concludes — ''To sum 
up all, the manner of baptizing, whether by dipping or sprin- 
kling, is not determined in Scripture. There is no command 
for one rather than the other. There is no example from 
which we can conclude for dipping rather than for sprinkling. 
There are probable examples of both ; and both are equally 
contained in the natural meaning of the word.'' *^ 

Dr. Adam Clarke also has often been adduced by the Bap- 
tists in proof of the exclusiveness of immersion — and we pro- 
ceed to defend him before the reader. In his observations 
at the end of Mark's Gospel, he says, "On the mode of ad- 
ministering baptism, there need be no dispute among Chris- 
tians: both dipping and sprinkling are legitimate forms; 
and either may be used, as the consciences or religious 
prejudices of the parties may direct; but the thing itself, in 

'3 As our Baptist brethren aire very fond of quoting Mr. "Wesley on 
baptism, I invite their attention to his note on " close communion," as it 
is called. Note, Acts xi. 17 : " Who was I, that I could withstand God ?" 
" Particularly laying down rules of Christian communion, which exclude 
any whom he hath admitted into the church of the firstborn from wor- 
shipping God together. Oh that all church-governors would consider 
bow bold a usurpation this is, on the authority of the Supreme Lord of 
the church ! Oh that the sin of thus withstanding God may not be laid 
to the charge of those, who, perhaps with good intention, but in an over- 
fondness for their own forms, have done it, and are continually doing it!" 



150 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



its great reference^ is of the utmost importance." Extracts 
from his Theology, pp. 253, 254. ^^ Were the people dipped 
or sprinkled ? for it is certain hapto and hajptizo mean both. 
^They were dipped/ say some. Can any man suppose/' 
the doctor continues, " that it was possible for John to dip 
all the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judea, and of all the 
country round about Jordan ? Were both men and women 
dipped ? for certainly both came to his baptism. This never 
could have comported with safety or decency. Were they 
dipped in their clothes ? This would have endangered their 
lives, if they had not with them a change of raiment. But 
suppose these were dipped, which I think it is impossible to 
prove, does it follow that in all regions of the world men 
and women must be dipped, in order to be evangelically 
baptized ? Those who are dipped or immersed in water, in 
the name of the Trinity, I believe to be evangelically bap- 
tized. Those who are washed or sprinkled with water in 
the name of the Trinity, / believe to be equally so — and the 
repetition of such a baptism I believe to be profane. To 
say that sprinkling or aspersion is no gospel baptism, is as 
incorrect as to say that immersion is none. Lastly, to assert 
that infant baptism is unscriptural, is as rash and reprehensi- 
ble as any of the rest. Myriads of conscientious people 
choose to dedicate their infants to God by public baptism. 
They are in the right ! — and by acting thus, follow the 
general practice of the Jewish and Christian church — a prac- 
tice from which it is as needless as it is dangerous to depart." 

The Baptists have made the same plausible and capti- 
vating misrepresentations in explaining the old versions of 
the Bible. We shall mention some .of the most important. 

Martin Luther's version. "Luther, one of the great 
Keformers, gave the Bible translated to the Grermans, that 
they might read in their own language the wonderful works 
of Grod, and he rendered baptize into the word signifying to 



UNFAIRNESS OP THE BAPTISTS. 15J 



immerse.'^* Again, "Or as Luther, the great reformer, 
renders it in his German Testament, Johannes der Taufer — 
John the Dipper." ^ " Other translators may do as they 
please ; baptize may be twisted into all sorts of meaning ex- 
cept immersion — except indeed in the case of old versions. 
Luther may say that it means to immerse, and his version 
shall continue to be circulated ; but wo be to the Baptists if 
they say so ; and what is the reason V ^^ 

Will not the reader be surprised when he is reminded 
that Luther himself baptized by sprinkling, and that the 
Germans and all the Lutherans who use this very transla- 
tion of Luther, also, in the present day, baptize by sprin- 
kling ? The German minister, when he takes the water in 
his hand aijd sprinhles oi pours it on the subject, says, "/cA 
taufe dichJ' And so Luther himself, when he took the 
water in his hand, and sprinkled or poured it on the head 
of the subject, said, "IcH tauee dich.'^ The meaning, 
therefore, Luther gave to ^aw/er and taufen, as it respects 
mode, was sprinkle or pour. And so he translates the word 
wash, in Mark vii. 4 : " Und wenn sic vom markte kommen, 
essen sic nich, sic washen sigh denn'^ — they wash them- 
selves. And so in Luke xi. 38. '■'■ Ba das der Pharisaer 
sah verwunderte er sich, dass er sich nicht vor den essen 
GEWASCHEN hatte" — had not WASHED himself. Indeed, 
the Germans use these words with specific reference to 
the sacrament of baptism, or in a sense that signifies 
washing. And so the English and German lexicographers 
translate these words, and whenever they use words express- 
ing immersion, taufen, is not among them.^^ 

14 Mr. Woolsey, (a Baptist,) p. 75. is Ibid. p. 138. 

16 Report of Baptist Bible Society for 1840, p. 89. 

1'^ English and Grerman Dictionary, by F. A. Weber, Leipzic ed. 1833. 
BucKHAEDT, Berlin ed. 1823. Also, English, German, and French Dic- 
tionary, 3d ed., Leipsic, 1763,by Christian Ludwig. 



152 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



The Baptists have affirmed, particularly in their discus- 
sions with the Lutheran Church, " that Lutlier himself, the 
great Reformer, condem,ned the practice of sjprinkling, and 
even disapproved of infant baptism.^' That an assertion so 
entirely unfounded should be hazarded by any one, can be 
explained only by the reckless spirit of party ; and it is a 
matter of regret that any, specially Christian ministers, in 
their preaching or writings, should ever sacrifice candor to 
the impulse of such a spirit. 

Luther's hostility to popery is not susceptible of stronger 
proof than is his most cordial support of infant baptism and 
the validity of sprinkling. The proof we shall now give. 

" That the dipping of a child in water, or sprinkling it 
with water according to the command of Christ, should 
cleanse it from sin and transfer it from the kingdom of 
Satan to the kingdom of Grod, is reviled by reason,'' &c. 
Singular ia Luther i, by Philip Saltzman, Jena edition, 1564, 
tit. 220, art. Baptism, p. 657. '^Inasmuch as there is 
neither ornament nor honor at baptism, and Grod does out- 
wardly no more than apply a handful of water,'' &c. 
Ibid. chap. viii. p. 669. "I consider that hy far the safest 
baptism is the baptism of children,'' &c. Ibid. chap. x. p. 
602. " Devils must flee from baptism ; why ? — they do not 
regard the water and the letter, but it is because God has com- 
manded that we must use our hand and tongue in adminis- 
tering it by SPRINKLING water upon the subject in connec- 
tion with the words prescribed by God," &c. Ibid, chap xi. 
p. 663. "Again, if any one can obtain baptism, and yet 
cavils in this manner, how can a mere handful of water be 
of any benefit ? — he cannot be saved. For he despises God's 
word and the ordinance of Christ; he treats Christ as 
though he had acted foolishly in ordaining and commanding 
things useless." Luther's Works, Achter Theil, fol. 58. 



UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS. 153 



Copy of a letter of Dr. M. L. to Hs beloved wife; written 
in Halle : — 

"1546, Num. 61. 
" Grace and peace in the Lord. 

" Dear Katy, we arrived at Halle to-day at 8 o'clock, 
but we could not go to Eisleben. We were met by a large 
anahapti'st woman witb waves of water and great cakes of 
ice that covered the ground ; she threatened to baptize us 
over again, and as we could not retreat in consequence of 
the Mulda (a stream of water) in our rear, we were obliged 
to remain in Halle, between the waters; not, however, as 
though we thirsted for so much water," &c. 

Martinus Luther, D. 
" To my kind and beloved Katy Luther, 
in Wittenburg." 

Indeed, Luther was baptized in infancy by affusion, and 
considering this valid, he was never rebaptized. Dr. Fuller, 
a learned Baptist, of this country, in his work on " Baptism 
and Communion," p. 125, observes, "Instead of restoring 
Christian Baptism, and thus extricating themselves from 
this, as from other corruptions, Luther and Calvin both 
allowed infant baptism to remain, and practised it ." Dr. 
Fuller has too much good sense and candor to bear false 
witness against Luther, and certainly he will be received by 
the Baptists as a credible witness in the premises. 

The Peschito-Syriac version. The most extravagant 
assertions have been made concerning the antiquity of this 
version. Bishop Walton, Carpzov, Leusden, Bishop Lowth, 
and Dr. Kennicott fix its date in the first century. Bauer, 
and some other German critics, in the second century; Jahn, 
at the latest, in the second century; and De Rossi pro- 
nounces it to be very ancient, but does not specify any pre- 



154 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



cise date. But ihe most probable opinion is that of Michaelis, 
who ascribes it to the close of the first^ or to the early part 
of the second century. *** Mr. Woolsey affirms that 'Hhe 
venerable Peschito-Syriac version was evidently executed 
by the first of the last century/^ *^ that it is " the very best 
that has ever been made/' and that it has baptize translated 
by immerse. In the first place, this very version reads, 
^'when she (Lydia) was baptized with her children.^' ^o 
Secondly. This is proof that infant baptism existed before 
the close of the second century. Thirdly. It is not admitted 
that this version translates the word baptize by immerse. 
The best critics deny it, and say that ^^ the Syriac version 
employs a word which signifies ^ to confirm — to establish' — 
that is, refers to ' the rite' of confirmation, while the manner 
of this is apparently left without being at all expressed.'' ^ 
Fourthly. The Baptists themselves confess that this version 
is not favorable to their views. " I confess, I can derive no 
countenance to my practice as a Baptist from this version." ^ 
Fifthly. This version is the present Bible of the Nestorian 
Christians, and their word for baptize is exclusively appro- 
priated to the sacrament of baptism. Sixthly. The Nesto- 
rian Christians " baptize either by immersion or affusion, 
and make no objection when they see our missionaries bap- 
tize by sprinkling, but consider it as good and valid bap- 
tism." 23 

The Dutch, Danish, and Swedish version. The 



•8 Home's Introduction, new ed., from the 8tli London edition, vol. 
L 270. 

19 p. 71. 

20 Kurtz, p. 99. " The Coptic version gives the same reading." Hall 
on the Law of Baptism. 

21 Judd's reply to Professor Stuart, p. 164. 

22 See New York Evangelist, Jan. 23, 1841. 
^ Hall on the Law of Baptism, 3d ed. p. 130. 



UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS. 155 



Baptists afl&rm that the "Dutch, Danish, aud Swedish ver- 
sions have the words in dispute translated by words signify- 
ing immersion/^ ^ Dr. Henderson, who has studied the 
languages of Northern Europe on the ground, and is familiar 
with their idioms, shall be authority upon this subject, and 
no one will question him as authority. Says he, " As it re- 
spects the Gothic dialects, which have been repeatedly ap- 
pealed to with great confidence, it is a settled point with all 
who are acquainted with them, that the reference is totally 
irrelevant. That the Mseso-Grothic daupian, the Anglo- 
Saxon dyppan, the Dutch doopan, the Swedish dopa, the 
Danish dohe, and the German taufen, all correspond in 
sound to our English word dip, does not admit of any dis- 
pute, any more than the fact that dah, daub, and dub have 
the same correspondence ; but nothing would be more erro- 
neous than to conclude, with the exception of the Anglo- 
Saxon, that they have the same signification. No Dutch- 
man, Dane, Swede, or German would for a moment imagine 
that the words belonging to their respective languages meant 
any thing else than baptism by the application of water to 
the body baptized. The words are never used in those 
languages in another sense, or in application to anv other 
subject. Where the Germans would express dip or immersey 
they employ taucJien and not taufen, which is the word by 
which baptize is translated. The Danes, in like manner, use 
dyppe and neddyppe, for dip, and not dobe. And that 
neither Luther nor the authors of the Dutch, Danish, and 
Swedish versions had any intention of conveying the idea 
of immersion as implied in baptize, is obvious from the pre- 
position which they have used with the verb. Thus we read 
in German, mit wasser taufen ', in Danish, dobe met vand ; 



^ Report of the American Foreign Bible Society, 1840, p. 38. Wool- 
sey, p. 138. 



156 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



in Swedish, dopa med vatn ; in Dutch, doopen met wasser ; 
i. e. with water, and not in water ; which phraseology is as 
foreign to these languages as the practice which it would 
sanction is unknown to the inhabitants of the countries in 
which they are spoken. Even the Mennonites in Holland, 
and other parts, though they reject infant baptism, adminis- 
ter the ordinance by pouring^ and not by immersion.^^ ^^ 
We deem it needless to consider the unfairness of the Bap- 
tists any further in their appeals to ancient and modern ver- 
sions of the Bible on this subject. The same exposure might 
be made in every attempt which they make to support their 
claims, though they assume that " to them is committed the 
sole guardianship of pure and faithful translations of the 
oracles of God into the languages of the earth,'' ^^ and that 
they are " divinely and pecidiarly set for the defence and 
dissemination of the gospel, as delivered to men hy its Hea- 
venly Author ;" '^^ and yet these ^^ guardians" and '' defenders'' 
of the truth are divided among themselves, in their transla- 
tions of the sacred oracles — Campbell and Woolsey on one 
side, and Carson and Judd on the other — with Robert Hall 
meanwhile inflicting some of the heaviest blows upon the iron 
wall of " close communion" that ever fell from mortal hands. 
But it is time we had closed these remarks. I never 
knew or read of a version, ancient or modern, that sustains 
the exclusiveness of the Baptists on the subject of baptism, 
and I never knew or read of a pasdobaptist author who ad- 
mitted the validity of immersion to the exclusion of sprin- 
kling and pouring as proper modes of baptism. The unfair- 
ness of the Baptists in adducing psedobaptist writers as 
witnesses to the exclusiveness of immersion is seen in this, 

25 Hall on the Law of Baptism, pp. 131, 132. 
2S American and Foreign Bible Society Report, 1840, p. 79. 
2" Professor Eaton, in his speech before the Baptist Bible Society, at its 
anniversary. 



UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS. 157 



that they pervert their admissions of the validity of dipping 
into so many positive arguments in favor of the exclusiveness 
of immersion. And hence sometimes the Baptist preacher 
presents in the pulpit paedobaptist works and pamphlets as 
proofs of the exclusiveness of immersion, though, as we have 
seen, nothing can be more unfair or untrue. It were well, 
on all such occasions, to suspend the judgment till an op- 
portunity be afforded to settle the question by the whole 
testimony of the authors in question. And let the reader 
be assured, that while these authors admitted the validity 
of immersion as a mode of baptism, they made a clear dis- 
crimination between the validity of a mode, and the ex- 
clusiveness of immersion, in the works which they have 
written — works full of strong arguments against the ex- 
clusiveness of immersion, and in favor of sprinkling and 
pouring, as modes more expedient, rational, and scriptural. 
They proceeded upon the ground, that a mode, and the only 
mode, have nothing common in principle ; they never ad- 
mitted, but always opposed, the exclusiveness of immersion. 

Eighthly. All the evangelical denominations that practise 
sprinkling and pouring in administering the initiating sacra- 
ment of the Christian dispensation, have been crowned with 
great and signal success in publishing the gospel among 
men. But if there had been any thing essential in the mode 
of the initiating sacrament of the Chiistian dispensation, 
such would not have been their success. And so the success 
of the Baptists, at home and abroad, is in proof that the 
mode of initiating into the Christian church which they 
adopt is non-essential. It is advisable however, that the 
churches send psedobaptist missionaries to the polar regions. 

It may be observed here as a striking fact, that revivals 
of religion rarely commence among our Baptist brethren at 
the water's edge, or at the communion table ; but great re- 
vivals have commenced among other denominations at the 

14 



158 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



Lord^s table, and diiring the administration of baptism in 
the church — ^which is an impressive and forcible attestation 
of the divine approval of these institutions as means of grace. 
We now collect all these proofs together, obtained from the 
plain Scriptures; the inherent meaning of fiaTzrc^u) in its 
gospel sense; the force of the original Glreek prepositions; 
the harmonious connection of the external mode of baptism 
with the mode of spiritual baptism, and the spirit of the 
plan of salvation; and from collateral sources; — and we 
infer from them all, that the most appropriate mode of bap- 
tism is sprinkling or pouring : while immersion is not to be 
excluded, as a mode equally valid, though not equally 
rational, appropriate, and expressive, as pouring and sprin- 
kling. We shall, in the next chapter, consider some ob- 
jections usually urged by the Baptists against the views 
maintained in this part of the work. 



CHAPTER VII. 

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 



In this chapter, we shall consider the prominent argu- 
ments of the Baptists in favor of exclusive immersion as 
the initiating sacrament of the church under the Christian 
dispensation. 

First. "Baptism is a positive institution, and therefore 
should be rigidly adhered to.'' Grranted — ^but where is im- 
mersion positively enjoined in the Scriptures as baptism ? 
No where. The law of baptism refers to the fact, and not 
to the mode or circumstances of the mode of baptism. The 
spirit of the law of baptism, is our rule of duty, while the 
mariner of obedience is not determined positively, either by 
precept or example. Circumcision was a positive institution, 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 159 



but tlie mode of administering it was not defined. So the 
Lord's supper is a positive institution, but the mode of re- 
ceiving it is nowhere enjoined. The inference, therefore, 
from the nature, to the mode of baptism, is utterly ground- 
less. Besides, this is a new principle of duty, originated by 
the Baptists, in order to escape the irresistible force of moral 
or inferential reasoning in favor of other modes of baptism; 
and it is a principle unsound as it is novel. Circumstantial 
evidence is often as strong and clear as positive. The ne- 
cessity of moral duty is often argued by inferential reason- 
ing. And hence, as the mode of baptism is purely inferen- 
tial, it may be as clearly deduced from circumstantial testi- 
mony as if it were specifically and positively enjoined. 

Secondly. ^^ Since John is found at Jordan, the inference 
is that he baptized by immersion.'^ What — inference re- 
specting a positive institution ! It is an absurdity in terms. 
Positive injunctions leave no room for inference. The Bap-* 
tists most strenuously and scrupulously demand adherence 
to the original form of positive institutions. Mr. Booth, in 
his " Paedobaptism Examined," observes, " Compliance must 
he so, and no more, and no less, and no otherwise/' This 
is the invariable requisition of Baptist principles, and Bap- 
tist ministers, on the subject of baptism. And yet obliga- 
tion is here founded on inference — that is, a positive institu- 
tion is made a subject of inference. But granted. And 
then, upon the same ground of deduction, Saul of Tarsus, 
Cornelius, the jailer, Lydia, and the three thousand on the 
day of Pentecost, were baptized by sprinkling or pouring. 
And so here we have sprinkling and pouring also elemental 
in the positive institution of baptism. But the Baptists 
will not admit the force of inference in establishing these 
modes as positive institutions, and hence they must abandon 
the ground on which they determine the positive character 
of immersion as the mode of baptism. The true reason 



160 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



doubtless why Jolin took his station at Jordan was, because 
of the multitudes who came to be baptized, as we shall see 
from the following considerations. John removed from his 
position at Jordan, and took a more convenient station " in 
Enon, near Salem, because there was much water there" — 
and here again the Baptists straightway conclude, that the 
sole object for selecting such a spot was immersion. But 
this is not assigned as the reason in the sacred record; for, 
on this account, he need not have removed his station from 
Jordan!^ The term translated "much water,' ^ in the ori- 
ginal is plural — odaza. TzoXXd, liydata jpolla — many waters, 
many streams or springs. And why did John select such 
a place as this? Obviously, for the convenience of the 
multitudes who attended on his ministry — to obtain water 
for their cattle, for themselves, and for purposes independent 
of baptism. And thus, independently of the question of 
immersion, even admitting (which we do not) that John 
baptized by immersion, he should have selected the place he 
did, or some place like it. There is not one particle of 
proof that the purpose was immersion only. In the latitude 
of Palestine the mercury ranges in winter from 40° to 50°, 
and, in summer, from 80° to 100°; and in the plains of 
Jordan, much higher. Consequently, at a season of the 
year when the heat of a tropical sun was intense, and the 
people and their beasts would be exposed to great incon- 
venience on the open sandy beach of Jordan, and especially 
John himself would be prostrated in the performance of the 
arduous labors of his mission, it was found desirable at least, 

1 If John removed from Jordan to Enon because "there was much 
water there," that is, for the purpose of immersion, then there was more 
water in the river of Jordan than at Enon, and the reason given for 
John's removal falls to the ground. Besides, just now it was assnmed, 
that because " John was found at Jordan, the inference is, that he bap- 
tized by immersion" — then why does he leave Jordan, and go to Enon? 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 161 



most probably, necessary, for John to remove to some salu- 
brious and pleasant station, such as Enon, farther north, 
where there were many springs, with their shade, and every 
convenience that John could desire for himself, the multi- 
tude, their families, their servants, and their beasts of 
burden. Besides, the water at Enon was better than that 
of Jordan. ^^ The water of Jordan is turbid and black, and 
unfit to drink, until it has been filtered, or stood several 
hours in vessels and settled." Jordan, by the Greeks, was 
called [xsXaq, hlack. ^^I observed that the river (Jordan) 
was scarcely half full, yet the water was somewhat turbid." 
Dr. Durbin's Observations in the East, vol. ii. 6. "The 
shores of the Dead Sea, and the valley to the north of it, 
consist of an expanse of salt, dry mud, and moving sand. 
In proceeding through the plain, Chateaubriand discovered 
what at first appeared to be sand in motion. On drawing 
nearer, he beheld a yellow current, scarcely to be dis- 
tinguished from the sands on its shores. It was deeply 
sunk below its banks, slowly creeping toward the pesti- 
lential lake by which it is engulfed. This was the Jordan." 
Murray's Encyclopaedia of Greography, vol. ii. 255. The 
object of John therefore in removing from Jordan to Enon, 
was to obtain an adequate supply of wholesome water for 
the purposes of drinking, cooking, and ceremonial and ordi- 
nary ablutions. The necessity of "much water" for these 
purposes is obvious. "Much water" was required by the 
multitude for these purposes. In a word, the climate; the 
quality J as well as quantity, of water required obviously for 
other purposes than those of baptism; the superior con- 
veniences of Enon as a statiop; and the fact, that there was 
more water in Jordan than at Enon, — induce the belief, that 
the mode of baptism did not enter at all into the considera- 
tions that caused John to remove his station from Jordan 
to Enon. To suppose that immersion was the principal 

14* 



162 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



object in view is a mere surmise originating in the imagina- 
tion, and unsupported by a particle of proof, even the re- 
motest probability. No argument can be drawn from the 
history of the case in support of the hypothesis of the Bap- 
tists. But the necessity for much water being admitted on 
all hands as existing independently of the mode of baptism, 
it is most probable that John baptized by sprinkling or 
pouring — as we have seen in the preceding part of this 
treatise. The multitudes baptized; the distance they came 
to be baptized; the great inconvenience of immersing both 
men and women in their apparel ; the indecency of baptizing 
in a state of nudity; the probability that no change of 
raiment was brought for the purpose of immersion; and 
above all, the brevity of John's ministry — are so many cir- 
cumstances that render it morally certain that John baptized 
by the convenient and easy mode of sprinkling or pouring. 

Thirdly. " Why did the apostles baptize in the open air, 
and at the water's edge, where was much water?" The 
answer applicable in the preceding case is equally applicable 
here. In the first place, in the beginning of Christianity, 
the apostles had no houses in which to preach and baptize; 
and, therefore, where else could they baptize but in the open 
air ? And secondly, because of the vast multitudes crowd- 
ing every day to their ministry, houses however large would 
have been too small to preach in, and to afford conveniences 
for the administration of the ordinances; and hence they 
must retire to the open air, or to some convenient and well- 
watered parts of the country. If as great numbers attended 
the Christian ministry in the present day, and converts were 
as numerous now as they were in the days of the apostles, 
there would still be the necessity of resorting to some con- 
venient position in the open air to preach the gospel and 
baptize the converts. 

Fourthly. " Where reference is made to the operation of 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 163 



tlie Holy Spirit^ under the ideas of sprinkling and pouring, 
the meaning is j^^wra^iz;e/' Grranted : and then immersion 
is placed farthest from the design of the figure. Had the 
Scriptures read, " I will immerse you in clean water/^ doubt- 
less a figurative meaning in favor of immersion would have 
been zealously supported by the Baptists. But there is no 
prophecy or promise in the Bible referring to, or defining 
baptism, by immersion, though there are many respecting 
sprinkling and pouring. 

Fifthly. ^^ Immersion is set forth under the figure of a 
burial.'^ Then it is inferential, and hence cannot be positive. 
Besides, sprinkling and pouring are set forth under the 
figures of spiritual baptism by sprinkling and pouring ; and 
consequently, on the same ground that the Baptists suppose 
immersion consistent and proper, they should admit the pro- 
priety and validity of sprinkling and pouring. But there 
is no allusion whatever in this passage of Scripture to any 
mode of baptism. It refers to the spiritual nature and 
obligation of Christian baptism. 

(1.) It is a plain antithesis. " "We are buried with him," 
is the first part ; '^ even so we should walk in newness of 
life," is the second part. ^^ Newness of life," which every 
Christian actually experiences in this life, is evidently 
sjnritual; consequently " buried with Christ" is also spiri- 
tual; and to understand this phrase as a Uteralhurisl under 
water, is, therefore, to give it a meaning which the laws of 
exegesis positively forbid ; for there is no resemblance be- 
tween a spiritual hurial unto sin and a literal immersion in 
water. Give this passage a spiritual meaning, and there is 
a propriety in baptism by water, and a coincidence between 
formal and spiritual baptism; give it a literal meaning, and 
there is neither propriety nor coincidence in the case. The 
ritual services of the Jewish dispensation were typical of 
moral purification, and not of death or interment, and 



164 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



analogy' under tlie Christian dispensation is preserved by 
investing baptism with a spiritual and not a literal sig- 
nification. 

(2.) Upon the hypothesis of the Baptists, there is no 
appropriateness whatever in baptism. None in representing 
the spiritual character of the subject of baptism. Baptism 
is an emblem of moral purity, or regeneration by the Holy 
Spirit: it signifies spiritual life in the subject, and not 
natural decomposition, putrefaction, loathsomeness, and 
death. None in representing Christ's interment. The 
body of the blessed Saviour was laid in a stone cell, ahove- 
groundj and not in a tomb sunk in the earth. Hence, in 
the passage before us, there is no reference whatever to the 
mode of baptism. 

(3.) Upon the hypothesis of the Baptists, the passage 
before us proves too much, and hence fails altogether. In 
the next verse it is said: "We have been planted together 
in the likeness of his death.'' Planting with Christ is 
spiritual, and this every believer actually experiences. That 
is, as the seed sown in the ground derives from the ground 
all its nourishment and fruitfulness, so the believer derives 
from the vicarious death of Christ all his spiritual life and 
fruitfulness. It is evident, no external mode of baptism 
whatever can illustrate the nature or manner of this spiritual 
derivation. If the ^^ likeness of Christ's death'^ is to be 
illustrated literally by baptism, then immersion or plunging 
cannot do it, for Christ died on the cross, and so the hy- 
pothesis of the Baptists implies too much. But if the 
" likeness of Christ's death" is to be illustrated spiritually 
by baptism, then all external mode whatever is out of the 
question. "Planted in the likeness of his death" signifies 
a participation of the spiritual blessings of Christ's death, 
and, in the nature of things, no mode whatever can be an 
appropriate emblem of this participation : the fact, not the 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 165 



mode, of the participation, is all that is or can be signified 
in baptism. The mode of baptism can no more represent 
the moral or spiritual burial of the believer, or his participa- 
tion of the spiritual blessings of the vicarious death of Christ, 
than it can represent the sacrificial quality of Christ's death. 
These are great facts which have no analogies of a sensible 
nature in the universe. Besides, (in ver. 6,) we are said to 
be ^'crucified with Christ" by baptism, which evidently is 
spiritual also, and, in the nature of things, this spiritual 
crucifixion cannot be represented by any sensible analogies 
in the universe. Indeed, even admitting that the passage 
before us is to be literally interpreted, there is no resem- 
blance between plunging into the water, and the nailing of 
a body to the cross. And thus, tliough the spiritual mean- 
ing of the passage be omitted altogether, it proves too much 
for the Baptists, and so entirely fails. Nor is this all. It 
proves too much in another respect. In one instance, bap- 
tism is made to represent the death of Christ, in another his 
crucifixion, in another his hurial, and in another, ^^ being 
planted with him." Thus, the unity of the figure is de- 
stroyed; for how can the mode of baptism represent all 
these circumstances or events which are essentially dis- 
similar? especially in the case of immersion, which in fact 
resembles not one of these events ? Christ's crucifixion was 
literal — immersion does not resemble that: Christ's death 
was literal — immersion does not resemble that: Christ's 
burial was literal — immersion does not resemble that: 
Christ's resurrection was literal — immersion does not re- 
semble that, for who can tell how Christ's body was revived? 
Besides, the believer rises spiritually from a state of moral 
death. If immersion resembles the raising and nailing of 
a hody to a cross, how can it resemble the taking down and 
hurial of a hody in the grave — acts entirely dissimilar? 
And so we repeat, the interpretation the Baptists give thp 



166 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



passage under consideration proves too much, and so fails 
altogether. 

(4.) If baptism represents Christ's burial literally, then 
the person baptized must remain under the water till the 
third day, for Christ lay in the tomb till the third day; 
and then the Baptists are to keep the persons they immerse 
three days under the water; and in this case, natural death 
must be the result, or the analogy fails. 

(5.) And so the parallel passage, in Gal. iii. 27, ^^As 
many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on 
Christ,'^ is to be interpreted literally. And then every 
person when baptized must put off and put on his apparel, 
and so be baptized naked ! Indeed, this was the construc- 
tion given to this passage by certain literalists in former 
days, and so they baptized in a state of perfect nudity, both 
males and females. They read ^' hurled by baptism," and 
so commenced plunging ; they read "put on Christ," and so 
they baptized naked; they read ^'in the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Grhost," and so they adopted 
trine immersion, or plunging three times : such are the gross 
absurdities of a literal interpretation of the three phrases be- 
fore us — two of which absurdities the modern Baptists have 
abolished, but the first of which they still retain, and which 
unfortunately is one of their distinguishing characteristics 
as a Christian denomination. 

(6.) ^^ Buried into death" — what, death after burial! 
Crucified after death ! Burial cannot be properly applied 
to a living man; if so, we must bury the subject pro- 
spectively, and consequently use the ^'burial service," in- 
stead of the baptismal form, whenever we baptize. 

(7.) If immersion is set forth under the idea of a burial, 
then "buried by baptism into death," means buried into 
death by death — ^which is a perfect absurdity; and ^^ buried 
with him in baptism," means buried by a grave into a grave 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 167 



•: — whicli is nonsense; and ^^ baptized into Moses'^ — as it may 
be translated — means buried into Moses — ^wbich is revolting 
in the extreme; and "baptized into Christ/^ means huriedinto 
Christ — ^whicb is the most shocking blasphemy and profanity. 

(8.) Some nations burn, embalm, and deposit their dead 
in vaults, or hang up the hody till the flesh decays, which 
immersion could never set forth to them. The gospel is to 
be preached to all nations, as a universal blessing; and it is 
evident that immersion could not in the same manner set 
forth the idea of spiritual death to those nations who 6wm, 
embalm, and hang up their dead.^ 

(9.) The case of Jonah was a sign of Christ's burial 
and resurrection, and Christ himself declares that no other 
sign should be given in addition to this sign. It is im- 
possible that Christ's ordinance should contradict his words, 
when he knew that every day his disciples by baptizing did 
typically set forth his burial and resurrection. 

(10.) Why did Christ's disciples wonder "what the rising 
from the dead should mean," if they understood the mean- 



2 Mr. Robert Robinson, the Baptist historian, in his " History of Bap- 
tism," sustains this objection. "The first English Baptists," says he, 
** when they read the phrase, buried in baptism, instantly thought of an 
English burial, and therefore baptized by laying the body in the form of 
burying in their own country ; but they might have observed that Paui 
wrote to the Romans, and the Romans did not hury, but burned their 
dead and buried nothing but their ashes in urns; so that no fair reason- 
ing on the form of baptizing can be drawn from the mode of burying the 
dead, in England." In like manner it was a custom of the ancient Mexi- 
cans to burn their dead. " On the death of a person, his corpse was 
dressed in the peculiar habiliments of his tutelar deity. It was strewed 
with pieces of paper, which operated as charms against the dangers of 
the dark road he was to travel. His body was burned, and the ashes, 
collected in a vase, were preserved in one of the apartments of his house. 
Here we have successively the usages of the Roman Catholics, the Mussul- 
man, the Tartar, and the ancient Greek and Roman." Prescott's Con- 
quest of Mexico, vol. i. 63, 64. 



168 



THE MODE or BAPTISM. 



ing of the baptism which they administered every day to 
refer to his resurrection? 

(11.) Indeed, after all, if the mode of baptism is set 
forth by a burial, then in baptizing, as in burying, the water 
should be poured or sprinkled on the subject till he be 
covered with the water. 

(12.) The fact is, our Baptist brethren can find no mean- 
ing in immersion unless they can make it refer to the death, 
burial, and resurrection of Christ, to which it has no re- 
ference, since the sacrament of the Lord^s supper has been 
expressly instituted by Christ himself ^Ho show forth his 
death till he come;'^ and neither men nor angels have any 
right to "add" another sacrament to show forth this great 
event, or to give another meaning to either of the sacra- 
ments not sustained by the Scriptures. 

These considerations compel us to reject the interpreta- 
tion of the Baptists, and we proceed to give the true import 
of the text. 

Baptism is a federal act, and once administered, is in 
force during life. Thus, the apostle uses the past tenses with 
a present signification, and this is in harmony with the 
genius of the Grreek and Hebrew languages. Thus, in the 
Hebrew: "The earth is full of violence,'^ i. e. the earth has 
been filled with violence. Gen. vi. 13 : "I delight to do thy 
will, my Grod,'' i. e. " I have delighted to do thy will," &c. 
Ps. xl. 8. Here the past tense indicates a state which, be- 
ginning at some former period, still continues to exist at 
the time of narration. So in the Greek. The past tenses are 
often used with a present signification, i. e. indicating a con- 
tinued action, as awtrdiprnxv^. Thus, we "are buried," &c., 
i. e. have been buried, &c., signifies that, having once 
assumed the solemn obligations implied in baptism, they 
continue in force through life. Consequently, if the burial 
referred to in the passage u.nder consideration is literal^ the 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 169 



Baptists are bound to keep their converts under water during 
life — a conclusion certainly not in harmony with the im- 
port of baptism. The design of the apostle is to illustrate 
by baptism the character and obligations of the believer. 
" How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein V 
i. e. how shall we, who are separated from sin, have any 
thing more to do with it? — a phraseology common among 
the Hebrews, G-reeks, and Latins. Thus, ^' Nihil mecum 
tibi, mortuus tihi sum'' Plautus. I have nothing to do 
with thee; I am dead to thee. Ti^vrjxa ^/xot, I am DEAD to 
thee. Libanius. The essential character of the believer im- 
plies, that having renounced sin, and been redeemed from 
the guilt and power of it, he is to refrain from the practice 
of it through life. Obligation to do so is next enforced by 
reference to the import of baptism. " Know ye not, that so 
many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized 
into his death ?^^ That is, by baptism we are formally con- 
secrated to Christ, formally recognised as participating in 
the blessings of his death, and formally laid under obligation 
to conform to the doctrines essentially connected with his 
death, to die unto sin, as he died for sin. By baptism, we 
are recognised as sustaining a moral and spiritual relation 
to the death of Christ, which is essentially inconsistent with 
sin. Nor is this all. Obligation to walk in newness of life 
is also imposed by baptism. " Therefore we are buried with 
him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised 
up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we 
also should walk in newness of life :" a new life, holy and 
spiritual; — life, death to sin; — life, during all life; — life, 
in a word, conformable to the obligations imposed upon man 
by the gospel of Jesus Christ. These great facts are sig- 
nified by baptism, and that is enough. This interpretation 
is intelligible, and is consistent with the remainder of the 

chapter and the whole plan of salvation — an interpretation 

15 



170 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



to which allusion to any mode of baptism could impart no 
additional force or propriety. The substance, and not the 
mode of baptism, is all that is required for the argument of 
the apostle, and is all he employs. The Baptists neglect 
the substance, and suppose a mode which, if admitted, de- 
stroys the appropriateness and force of the apostle's reasoning. 
In a word, the true meaning of this celebrated passage is, 
Baptism ritually unites to Christ, and sets forth a profession 
of religion founded upon his death, the subject being hereby 
typically washed from his former sins and pollutions, that 
he may afterward " walk in newness of life." Old things 
are done away, all things are become new. The old man is 
dead; old connections, old -practices, old principles, old 
names, old dispositions, are no more ; and the young believer 
testifies to the world that he is dead to the world, and ^^ alive 
in Christ Jesus;" and that he will no longer ^^walk after 
the flesh, but after the Spirit;" that he has formed new con- 
nections, adopted new practices, embraced new principles, 
possesses a new nature, and in future is to be known under 
a new name among men : and thus, his baptism sets forth a 
profession of Christ. Profession of Christ may be made by 
any mode, and that is the most proper mode which best 
represents the manner of spiritual baptism, which, as we 
have seen, is frequently set forth under the ideas of sprin- 
kling and pouring. The new birth is effected by faith, 
proved by ^^ newness of life," and set forth by profession 
under any form agreeable to the subject — ^but not under the 
idea of a burial, since no mode could represent a spiritual 
burial but a real burial of the body, which is impossible. 
And so we conclude that the apostle had no reference to 
the mode of baptism, but simply and alone to the solemn 
consecration and obligations involved in baptism. A mo- 
ment's reflection must convince the reader, not only of the 
inconsistency, but the unfairness of the Baptists. At one 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 171 



time, they urge upon young converts, that "tliey must 
follow their Lord and Master down into the water/' and at 
another time, they impose upon them the hard task of follow- 
ing Christ down ^'into death." At one time, they insist 
upon following the example of Christ in haptism; and at 
another time, enjoin the duty of being "planted in the like- 
ness of his death." What then was the mode of Christ's 
death? Why, crucifixion. And what is the likeness 
between immersion and crucifixion? None whatever. 
And young converts must follow Christ down into the water ^ 
and up to the cross, while in the former case it has been 
demonstrated that Christ was not immersed, and in the 
latter case, it is impossible to follow his example. The 
error of the Baptists is, that they confound the mode with 
the import of baptism ; and hence they lay more stress upon 
the mode than the import; while indeed the import, which 
is the principal thing in baptism, may be set forth by one 
mode as well as another. 

Sixthly. "Obligation to be immersed is based on the 
example of Christ." So far from admitting that obligation 
to be immersed rests upon the example of Christ, we do not 
admit that the obligation to be baptized rests upon his ex- 
ample. And thus, whether Christ was baptized by immer- 
sion or not, his example, in this sense, is not binding on us. 
Christ's baptism does not enter in any respect into the 
question of Christian baptism. The obligation of Christian 
baptism rests solely upon the commission of Christ to his 
apostles after his resurrection. "Gro and teach all nations, 
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost." Before we can acknowledge the 
obligation to be immersed from the example of Christ, two 
things at least must be proved : first, that Christ was im- 
mersed; and secondly, that he enjoined his example in this 
respect as binding on us. 



172 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



It is required to be proved, that Christ was immersed at 
his baptism. This cannot he done : indeed, the contrary is 
deducible from the whole force of inference already con- 
sidered, and will appear the more probable from other con- 
siderations now to be presented. We offer the following 
considerations to prove, first, that Christ was not immersed ; 
and secondly, that his baptism was not received as an ex- 
ample for any one, whether Jew or Gentile. 

(1.) John, who baptized Christ, did not abolish the rites 
of the Jewish dispensation. The Jewish dispensation con- 
tinued till the death of Christ : His shout on the Cross, " It 
is finished,' ' rent the vail of the temple from top to bottom, 
and consummated the Jewish economy. Christ lived and 
died under the Jewish dispensation, and all that he did pre- 
viously to his death was in conformity to this dispensation. 
Indeed, there could not be in force among men two dispensa- 
tions at the same time, and the Christian dispensation was 
not opened till after the death of Christ. Besides, it is evi- 
dent, the appointment of ordinances was a part of Christ's 
ministry, and consequently Christian baptism could not 
properly be instituted before Christ was inducted into his 
ministry, and consummated his divine mission in his death. 
In other words, a gospel ordinance could not be in force 
before the introduction of the gospel dispensation. Up to 
this time the Mosaic dispensation was in full force. Hence, 
John's baptism was not a Christian sacrament.^ 

(2.) John opened his dispensation some time before he 
knew Christ. '' The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto 
him, and saith. Behold the Lamb of G-od, which taketh 
away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said. After 
me cometh a man who is preferred before me, for he was 

3 " No rite celebrated during the ministry of John, is entitled to a place 
among Christian sacraments." Robert Hall's Works, vol. i. 372. Robert 
Hall is high authority among the Baptists. 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDEREX). 173 



before me: and I knew him not: but that he should be 
made manifest unto Israel, therefore am I come baptizing 
with water.'' Therefore John's dispensation preceded the 
Christian dispensation, since the latter was not introduced 
till after the death of Christ. John opened his dispensa- 
tion and baptized at least six months before Christ com- 
menced his public ministry. And consequently John's 
baptism was not Christian baptism; so that, whether he 
baptized Christ by immersion or not, is of no importance 
in settling the mode of Christian baptism. 

(3.) John's baptism was preparatory to the Christian dis- 
pensation.* As th€ Jews not only circumcised, but also 
baptized proselytes, signifying by baptism the impurity and 
uucleanness of the heathen world; so baptism was ad- 
ministered by John to the Jews, in order to set forth the 
spirituality of the Christian dispensation, that when the 
Jewish dispensation, with its initiating ordinance, circum- 
cision, should be abolished, they might not be unaccustomed 
to baptism, the initiating sacrament of the Christian dis- 
pensation. In this sense, John's baptism was wise, as well 
as preparatory : " that he (Christ) should be made manifest 
unto Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with waterJ' 
Now a rite, that was applicable to the Jews only as pre- 
paratory, could not be applicable to Christ, nor be an ex- 
ample to Christians ; and hence Jesus was not baptized ac- 
cording to John's baptism, nor as an example to Christians. 

(4.) John ascribes his commission to the Father , and not 
to Christ. "And John bare record, saying, I saw the 
Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode 
upon him: hut he that sent me to baptize with water, the 
same said unto me. Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit 

* And this A. Campbell concedes : " John's baptism, was not Christ's 
baptism. It was a preparatory institution." Christian Baptism, "printed 
and. published" by himself, Bethany, Va., 1851, p. 219. 

15* 



174 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



descending and remaining on him, the same is he which 
baptizeth with the Holy Grhost.'^ Thus, John's baptism 
was not an institution adopted by John, but enjoined by 
the Father, preparatory to the dispensation of the Spirit.^ 

(5.) The form of John's baptism was different from that 
of Christian baptism. The form that John used is expressed 
by Paul: ^^Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the 
baptism of repentance, saying, unto the people, that they 
should believe on Mm, who should come after him, that is, on 
Christ Jesus.'' " This was the form of John's baptism. 
Besides, some of the disciples of John had not heard 
^^ whether there be any Holy Grhost.'^ So that so far as the 
names of two of the persons of the blessed Trinity are indis- 
pensable to the form of Christian baptism, John's baptism 
was defective. But from all these considerations, even ad- 
mitting that Christ was baptized according to John's bap- 
tism — which we do not — then Christ's baptism was not 
Christian baptism, and hence it cannot be regarded as an 
example for Christians. But we go one step farther. 

(6.) Christ's baptism, in every material point, was not 
John's baptism. John's baptism was "unto repentance;" 
but Christ was infinitely holy, and hence could not repent. 
John's baptism imposed faith in Christ "to come;" Christ 
could not believe in his own name. Neither was Christ's 
baptism Christian baptism. Christian baptism required 
"teaching;" but Christ was infinitely wise, and could not 
be taught any thing. Christian baptism required faith in 



^ Here we may answer a popular objection. "If John's baptism was 
administered under the Jewish dispensation, why baptize at all, since 
circumcision was the appointed initiatory rite of the Jewish dispensa- 
tion?" God, the Father, thought proper to add the rite of baptism, that 
when, on the death of Christ, circumcision should be abolished, it might 
be received as the initiating sacrament of the Christian dispensation. 

6 Acts xix. 4. 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 175 



Christ 3 but Christ being the object of faith, could not believe 
in his own name. Christian baptism was administered in 
the name of the Trinity ; but Christ being one of the persons 
of the Trinity, could not be baptized in his own name. 
Christian baptism was not instituted till after the death of 
Christ; but Christ was baptised before his death. The 
imjport of baptism, both as a sign and seal, was wholly in- 
applicable to Christ. As a sign, it signifieth inward wash- 
ing and regeneration by the Holy Ghost, which presupposes 
the defilement of sin. As a seal, it is the pledge of our 
fidelity to Grod, and of God's fidelity to us. In none of 
these respects, in the very nature of things, could baptism 
be applicable to Christ. As therefore all the circumstances 
of Christ's baptism prove that his baptism was neither John's, 
nor Christian baptism, it is conclusive that it should not 
be regarded as an example for Christians; and it remains for 
us to inquire, what was the character of his baptism. ..^ 

(7.) It was a formal and solemn inauguration into 
the high-priest's office under the Christian dispensation. 
"And John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized 
of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering 
said unto him. Suffer it to be so now : for thus it becometh 
ns to fulfil all righteousness.'^ "^ What did he mean ? Ob- 
serve, John did not abolish Jewish rites. Christ had 
already been initiated into the Jewish church by circum- 
cision, which was the initiating ordinance of the Mosaic 
dispensation, and thus, in this respect, he had fulfilled the 
righteousness of the Jewish dispensation. He had remained, 
after this event, "in the obscurity of private life," till he 
was thirty years of age, the period required by the Jewish 
law before induction into the high-priest's office. And now 
he comes to John to fulfil the righteousness of the Jewish 

7 Matt. iii. 14, 15. 



176 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



law in this respect also. How then was a high-priest 
initiated into office under the Jewish dispensation? By 
referring to Ex. xxix. 4, 7, and Lev. viii. 6, 10, 11, 12, it 
will be seen that the outward form was washing and anoint- 
ing. Thus, as the high-priest was initiated into office by 
washing and anointing, so must Christ, in order to fulfil all 
righteousness, and to enter upon the great work of atone- 
ment for mankind. As to the mode of the washing referred 
to, that is not defined in the book of the ceremonial law; 
but common sense suggests that this ceremonial washing 
was performed by the application of water by pouring or 
sprinkling, rather than the total submersion of the subject. 
And we may conclude that John administered baptism to 
Jesus by sprinkling or pouring, when the holy anointing of 
the Spirit immediately completed his initiation into the 
office of High-Priest of the Christian dispensation. That 
this baptism was a formal initiation into the high-priest's 
office, appears conclusive from Christ's appeal to John's 
baptism in vindication of his authority for purging the tem- 
ple. "The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, 
or from men?" Had they replied, "From heaven," he 
would have silenced their compaints at once by answering, 
"You believe John then had a divine commission as the 
prophet of God — ^he consecrated me to the priestly office by 
baptism — and by virtue of my priestly office, I do these 
things." Robert Hall, who is great authority among the 
Baptists, entertains the view we have given of Christ's bap- 
tism. " He was inaugurated into his office at his baptism, 
till which period he remained in the obscurity of private 
life." ^ He declares, on same page, as already quoted, that 
"no rite celebrated during the ministry of John, is entitled 
to a place among Christian sacraments." Hence, according 

8 Robert Hall's Works, vol. i. 372. 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 177 



to Robert Hall^ Christ was initiated into the high-priest's 
office according to the Jewish dispensation. Now as John 
did not abolish Jewish rites, and consequently as he initiated 
Christ into the priestly office according to the requisitions, 
of the Jewish economy, of course when Christ himself, by his 
death, consummated and abolished the Jewish dispensation, 
he also abolished the ceremonies contained in his own bap- 
tism, and therefore his baptism can never be regarded as an 
example for the Christian church in all succeeding ages. 
The circumstances of his baptism can never occur again in 
fulfilling the ceremonial law. Had Christ's baptism, how- 
ever, been Christian baptism, it might then be regarded in 
the light of an example. 

Those who feel under obligation to follow Christ in his 
baptism, ought also to teach and submit to circumcision — to 
delay baptism till the thirtieth year of age — keep the passover 
— fast forty days and forty nights after baptism — wash the 
disciples' feet — keep the seventh-day Sabbath as under the 
Jewish dispensation — and then, if Christ's baptism was 
John's baptism, and not a Jewish ordinance of initiation 
into the priestly office, they ought to be rehaptized accord- 
ing to the form of the initiating ordinance of the Christian 
dispensation, as Christ's apostles did baptize certain of 
John's disciples. From all that we have said, it is evident, 
that Christ's baptism was neither John's nor Christian bap- 
tism; and consequently Christ's baptism was not an ex- 
ample to the Jews under Jolin's dispensation, nor to Chris- 
tians under the Christian dispensation. Even admitting — 
which we do not — that Christ was baptized according to 
John's baptism, then his baptism cannot be regarded as an 
example for us — for certain of John's disciples, as first ob- 
served, were rebaptized under the Christian dispensation. 

That certain of John's disciples were rebaptized under 
the Christian dispensation, is evident from the 19th chapter 



178 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



of Acts: "And lie said unto them, unto what then were ye 
baptized ? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said 
Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, 
<**aying unto the people, that they should believe on him who 
should come after him; that is, on Christ Jesus. When 
they heard this, they were haptized in the name of the Lord 
Jesus.^' Mr. Carson admits that these disciples of John 
were rebaptized. His language is: "I know this is dis- 
puted; but for my part, I never doubted it. I cannot see 
how this can be denied without torturing the word of Grod." 
(P. 372.) Nay, further, admitting — which we do not — that 
Christ was baptized according to John's dispensation by im- 
mersion , even then the defective character of John's dis- 
pensation, the mere mode by which its ordinances were 
administered, could not supersede the necessity of rehaptism 
under the Chi'istian dispensation. In a word, when it is 
considered that Christ was not baptized according to John's 
baptism; and that, consequently, his baptism was not an 
example to the Jews under John's dispensation; that he was 
not baptized according to Christian baptism, and that his 
baptism is consequently not an example to Christians; that 
his baptism had reference solely to his initiation into the 
priestly office; and that it is morally certain he was bap- 
tized by sprinkling or pouring, — all hope of support in favor 
. of immersion, from this quarter, must be for ever abandoned 
by the Baptists. 

We wish to prove, further, that Christ's baptism was never 
designed by him to be an example either to Jew or Gentile. 

elohn's dispensation, as we have said, was preparatory 
to the Christian dispensation; and consequently some of 
Christ's apostles rehaptized certain of John's disciples. 
Therefore, as Christ was baptized under John's dispensation, 
if he was baptized according to John's baptism, he should 
have been baptized again under the Christian dispensation, 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 179 



n order to be an example to us. But as Christ's baptism 
was not an example to the Jews under John's baptism, 
since, as we shall presently see, he was baptized after all the 
people had been baptized; so his baptism cannot be an ex- 
ample to us, since he was not rebaptized under the Chris- 
tian dispensation. That his baptism cannot be regarded as 
an example to the Jews under John's baptism, is fully evi- 
dent from a single consideration. Our Baptist friends seem 
to forget that Christ's baptism was administered too late to 
entitle it to the character of an example. Luke says, that 
"when all the people were baptized, it came to pass that 
Jesus also, being baptized," &c.^ And so the other evangel- 
ists say that the baptism of the people preceded the baptism 
of Christ. "Why was not Christ baptized in early life ? In- 
dee#, why was he not the first to be baptized by John, that 
his baptism might have all the force of an example, under 
John's dispensation? And hence, since Christ's baptism 
was deferred till the last, we conclude that his baptism was 
not designed to be an example to the Jews. And lest some 
scrupulous mind should doubt the truth of this interpretation 
of Luke and the other evangelists, we invite attention to the 
opinion of Robert Bobinson, in his History of Baptism 
p. 34 : "When John began to baptize at Bethabara beyond 
Jordan, his first baptismal station, Jesus resided at Nazareth 
in Gi-alilee, and he did not arrive at Bethabara till all the 
people had heen baptized." Mr. Bobinson refers to Luke 
iii. 21. Indeed the whole question of antecedence is settled 
by the fact, admitted on all hands, that John baptized with 
a view of Christ " to come/' which could not have been true, 
if Christ had previously entered upon his ministry by ini- 
tiation at his baptism. All the people had been baptized, 
and consequently were in waiting for him when he came, 

9 Luke iii. 21. 



180 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



and must have remembered the declaration of John, ^^This 
is he of whom I said, he that cometh after me is preferred 
before me/' Thus, Christ's baptism was not an example to 
the Jews under John's dispensation. 

Nor was Christ's baptism designed to be an example under 
the Christian dispensation. In addition to what has been 
said already, we invite the reader's careful attention to the 
following considerations. Example does not bind merely 
as example. There is no force in example itself, as for 
instance, the mediatorial, the peculiar acts of Christ. There 
must be some explicit rule to determine what examples bind, 
and what do not, or else we can never know which to follow. 
It is, therefore, some explicit law that makes example bind- 
ing ; and consequently, in the absence of explicit law, no 
example can be made binding on the consciences of Mt«n. 
We are bound to follow Christ's example, not simply because 
he did this or that, but because he has expressly enjoined the 
same things on us. And hence, though Christ was im- 
mersed — and we do not believe he was — his example cannot 
be made binding without positive, explicit law on the subject 
— of which we find no record in the Bible. On the other 
hand, in the absence of explicit law concerning any example, 
we are to be governed by the morality of the example, and 
not by the example itself. If the morality of an action or 
example can be shown by any other action, the law of Grod 
is fully met, and our obligations are discharged in that case. 
Thus, it is binding on all to do good, but the actions by 
which men do good are not specified and enjoined, for actions 
absolutely different in themselves may possess the same 
moral quality. So the moral quality of actions not specified, 
be shown, it is immaterial what the action is which may be 
adopted, provided it be consistent with truth, purity, and 
order. Thus, it is binding on all to be baptized, and the 
m,oral qiiality of ha^tism may he shown as well hy one mode 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 181 



as hy another. It is admitted, if the action itself possess a 
moral quality, then it is binding. Has immersion, pouring, 
or sprinkling, in any respect, a moral quality inherent? 
No : and hence, neither of them is binding in view of its 
moral quality, since the mode of baptism is nowhere specific- 
ally defined and positively enjoined in the Bible. Immer- 
sion is made binding neither by any inherent moral quality 
nor by positive divine law; and so with sprinkling and 
pouring. We will illustrate this view by two examples from 
the Scriptures. The first is given in the 13th chapter of 
the Gospel by John. Christ washes the disciples feet. " I 
have given you," says Christ, ^' an example, that you should 
do as I have done.'^ The moral lesson he teaches is hu- 
mility, for humility is the moral quality of the action — and 
never was this exalted grace of the Christian character pre- 
sented in a more impressive form. But surely Christ did 
not mean that we should adopt his action in this case, 
although it is definitely stated that " he arose from supper 
and laid aside his garments, and took a towel and girded 
himself. And after that he poured water into a basin and 
began to wash the disciples feet, and to wipe them with 
the towel wherewith he was girded." Here all the circum- 
stances are minutely mentioned; and yet none of them 
specifically enjoined as our example — only the moral quality 
of the circumstances is made binding on the Christian church, 
and especially on the ministers of Christ. 

The other case is given by Peter, in his first epistle and 
second chapter. He wished to enforce the submission of 
servants to their masters, ^^ when they do well, and suffer for 
it" — "because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an ex- 
ample, that ye should follow in his steps." ^° Here the 

^° This passage of Scripture is often quoted by the Baptists in defence 
of immersion. What has immersion to do with the meekness and gen- 
tleness of the Christian character enjoined by Peter? 

16 



182 THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 



meekness and gentleness of Christ's character are presented 
as an example. But it is impossible for men or angels to 
show forth gentleness and meekness by ^^ following the steps'* 
of Christ's sacrificial suffering while on earth. He has left 
us an example, not of action, but of moral quality — and this 
moral quality may be expressed under a thousand forms in 
all the ages of time. The same view may be taken of bap- 
tism. Its moral quality is all that is essential, which may 
be expressed by any mode, according to the judgment of the 
subject. Once more : unity is an essential feature of the 
Christian church. No matter how modes of administering 
the sacraments may vary, so the same moral quality is ex- 
pressed. It is the moral quality of actions that secures the 
unity of the church, no mattter how various may be its 
branches. The moral quality of baptism, and not the mode, 
entitles the whole church of Christ to the most intimate and 
holy communion. Besides, we are to follow the example of 
Christ only in obeying the laws of morality and piety, and 
not in keeping and fulfilling ceremonial ordinances. More- 
over, the confounding John's with Christian baptism is an 
error of no small moment. Paul censured the Hebrews 
severely for blending Judaism with Christianity ; and the 
error of our Baptist brethren, in identifying John's with 
Christian baptism, is no less worthy of condemnation. On 
the whole, we conclude that no obligation can be imposed 
on the Christian church upon the ground of Christ's bap- 
tism, whether it respects the fact or the mode of his baptism. 
Obligation to be baptized, under the Christian dispensation, 
we repeat, rests upon the great commission of Christ to his 
apostles, given after his death and resurrection, "Gro and 
teach all nations, baptizing them," &c., and upon the prac- 
tice of the apostles themselves, who went forth to fulfil 
their commission. 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 183 



SeventUy. " Immersion at tlie hands of an administrator 
who has not been immersed, is not valid baptism/^ 

This objection is founded upon an assumption analogous 
to the exploded dogma of apostolic succession among the 
Episcopalians. The chain of succession in both cases — if 
any ever existed — is broken into a thousand fragments, and 
the links lie scattered irrecoverably among the promiscuous 
ruins of time ; and hence both assumptions are to be re- 
garded as utterly destitute of any consideration in settling 
the questions of episcopal ordination and the validity of 
clerical administrations. The whole weight of the objection 
entertained by the Baptists themselves against the tenet of 
episcopal succession, lies against their claims to exclusive- 
ness in the administration of the sacraments, as a moment's 
consideration shall establish. 

Upon a careful examination of all authoritative church 
history, it will be found that opposition to infant baptism 
commenced about the middle of the twelfth century, among 
a people ^^ few, ignorant, and easily converted." The credi- 
bility of the authorities we shall adduce on this subject, has 
never been questioned by the Baptists themselves. The 
origin of the Baptist Church is thus described by Wall : "I 
take this Peter Bruis and Henry to be the first anti-paedo- 
baptist preachers that ever set up a church or society of men 
holding that opinion against infant baptism, and rebaptizing 
such as had been baptized in infancy. They were both 
Frenchmen. Peter had had a church or parish, but was 
turned out of it for some misdemeanor. Henry had been a 
monk, and had deserted the monastery. Peter began to 
preach in 1126, and about the year 1144 was taken and 
burnt. As for Henry, after he had gone about preaching 
in many cities and provinces in France, whence he soon fled, 
and lying hid for some time, was taken and delivered to the 
bishop, (the Bishop of Ostia, I suppose,) but what was done 



184 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



with him is not said.''^* ^'No sooner had the Reformation, 
begun by Luther, anno 1517, taken good footing in Saxony 
and some other parts of Grermany, but that within some five 
or six years there arose a certain sort of men that pretended 
to refine upon him. One Nicodemus Storck, and Thomas 
Munzer, seconded within a while by one Hobmeir, preached 
that the baptism of infants was also an abuse that must be 
reformed; and they baptized over again such as became 
their disciples. They also added other things ; that it was 
not fit, nor to be endured in the kingdom of Jesus Christ, 
that some should be so rich, and some so poor. Abundance 
of people flocked to them. Munzer called himself the sivord 
of the Lord, and of Gideon. Luther and the Protestants 
entered their protestation against their proceedings, as 
bringing a scandal on the new begun Keformation ; but they 
went on, and after some time (great numbers of disorderly 
people joining with them) became masterless, made a sort 
of army, and committed great ravages on the estates of rich 
men, where they marched. And at last, anno 1534, a strong 
party of this sort of men, coming mostly from Holland, 
seized on the city of Munster, where one John Becold, called 
John of Leyden, being advanced to be their king, they pre- 
tended to prophecy and revelation ; and did, under the name 
of Christ's kingdom, practise several tyrannies and enormities, 
as polygamy,^ plundering, &c. Some regular forces being 
brought against them, they were subdued, and the king, and 
some heads of them being put to death, the rest were dis- 
persed into several parts of Grermany.^^ That which is more 



" Wall's History of Infant Baptism, vol. ii. 273-277. 

'2 " As a demonstration of the soundness of his faith in this Christian 
liberty, Boccold, the successor of Matthias, took unto himself fourteen 
loives, one of whom was the widow of his predecessor, a woman of singu- 
lar beauty." Robertson's Charles V. p. 54. 

13 See also Goodrich's History, and Ruter's Church History^ 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 



material to the history of infant baptism, is to inquire 
whether this Storck, Munzer, Hobmeir, &c. did at that 
time, viz. anno 1522, set up this thing new, or newly re- 
ceived, or whether it had been continued and handed down 
by some dispersed people, from the time of the Petrobrus- 
sians to this time. If there were any continuation of the 
doctrine for the said two or three hundred years, it must 
have been very obscure, and by a very few men, because 
there is in all that interval no mention of them in any good 
author. Menno succeeded, a countryman of Friezeland, a 
man of a sober and a quiet temper ; he held the doctrine of 
antipaedobaptism, disclaimed against the seditious doctrines 
and practices of those at Munster, and of Batenburg ', and 
taught that the kingdom of Jesus Christ, which they had 
pretended to set up by external force, consisted in patience, 
and meekness, and suffering quietly, if occasion should be. 
One Theodoric succeeded Menno in this doctrine. The fol- 
lowers of Menno, to this day, generally call themselves 
Mennonites, or by abbreviation, Minnists. One thing Cas- 
sander says of Menno that is particular, viz. : f Some of 
these men (followers of Menno) had first endeavored to fix 
the origin of infant baptism upon some pope of Rome : 
Menno had more sense. He was forced to own that it had 
been in use from the apostles^ times. But he said that the 
false apostles were the authors of it.^ As for the present 
state of the jMinnists, a late writer of those parts, an extract 
of whose book is given by Mr. Boval, says, ^ Except Hol- 
land, where they live peaceably, they are almost extinct.^ 

^'In England there were now and then some Dutchmen 
found of the antipaedobaptist opinion ever since the time it had 
taken footing in Holland ; but more of the English nation 
are known to have embraced it in a long time after. In the 
beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, as there were no English 
antipaedobaptists, so there were very few left in Holland. 

16* 



186 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



At what time it began to be embraced by any English I do 
not find it easy to discover. But it is plain that no very 
considerable number in England were of this persuasion till 
about sixty years ago. Any very ancient man may remem- 
ber when there was no Englishmen, or at least no society 
or church of them, of that persuasion. Their eldest churches 
are not yet of the age of man, viz. seventy years. I mean 
the ancient men or men of reading among them know this ; 
the young and the vulgar, who will talk right or wrong for 
a side, do not own it; but the others own, and they justify 
it by pleading that their opinion is the truest." ^* 

The. Baptists of the present day do not like to be reminded 
of these men as their predecessors. But if these men were 
not their predecessors they have none, for they haver never 
produced any other. Such is the history of the origin of 
the Baptist Church in Europe. We shall refer more at 
length to the origin of the Baptist Church in our examina- 
tion of the rise and progress of opposition to infant baptism, ' 
in the latter part of this work. 

The origin of the first Baptist church in England is thus 
described by Mr. Backus, a Baptist, and historian of the 
Baptist church in New England: — "A number of people 
near the borders of the counties of York, Nottingham, and 
Lincoln, were so much convinced of the corruptions of the 
Church of England, that they withdrew from her in 1602, 
and formed another church, in which they covenanted to- 
gether to walk in all the ordinances and commandments of 
God, according to the light he had given, or should give 
them out of his holy word." " This the author calls the 
first Baptist church formed in England, and his account 
nearly coincides with the statement of Wall. Mr. Bene- 

14 Wall's History of Infant Baptism, vol. ii. 292-294, 300, 301, 302, 306, 
313, 315, 317, 325, 557-558. First published in 1705. 

15 Backus's Church Hist, of j5. England, c. i. 19. 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 187 



diet's history of tlie origin of the first Baptist church in 
England is not only more comprehensive than that of Mr. 
BackuS; hut contains a refutation of the assumption we are 
considering. "John Smyth/' says he, " a clergyman of the 
established church, went over to Holland in the beginning of 
the reign of James I. In his examinations of the Scriptures 
he soon perceived that neither infant baptism nor sprinkling 
had any foundation in them. He was soon cast out of the 
church. In a short time several were converted to his senti- 
ments^ and their numbers increasing rapidly, he formed them 
into a distinct church. This appears to have been the 
FIRST Baptist church composed of Englishmen, after the 
Reformation. It was formed about 1607 or 1608. It seems 
that Mr. Smyth and his friends were put to some difficulty 
in reviving the practice of immersion. He AND ALL HIS 
disciples had been sprinkled IN INFANCY ; and there- 
fore, according to their views, were unbaptized. What 
method he took is not very clearly stated. It is most pro- 
bable that those who were convinced of the duty of be- 
liever's baptism, first formed themselves into a church, and 
then appointed two of their numher to baptize EACH other, 
and afterward to baptize the rest." And Mr. Benedict adds, 
^' A similar difficulty occurred in the formation of the original 
Baptist church in America by Boger Williams, who had 
recourse to the same expedient; and we shall find, in the 
sequel of this history, that the good men of Leicestershire, 
in the middle of the last century, when placed in similar 
circumstances, adopted the SxIME method." Benedict's 
Hist, of the Baptists, pp. 327-330. It is now generally 
known and admitted that Boger Williams was the founder 
of the first Baptist church in America. The testimony is 
abundant. "Being settled in this place, which, from the 
kindness of Grod to them, they called Providence, Mr. 
Williams, and those with him, considered the importance 



188 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



of gospel union; and were desirous of forming themselves 
into a churcli, but met with considerable obstruction. They 
were convinced of the nature and design of believer's bap- 
tism by immersion, but, from a variety of circumstances, had 
hitherto been prevented from submission. To obtain a 
suitable administrator was a matter of consequence. At 
length, the candidates for communion nominated and ap- 
pointed Ezekiel Holliman, a man of gifts and piety, to ba][)- 
tize Mr. Williams, and who in return baptized Mr. Holliman 
and the other ten.^^ ^^ The same author, in a revised and 
enlarged edition of his work, published in 1848, concerning 
the same transaction, observes: ^'In 1639, he (Roger 
Williams) was baptized by Ezekiel Holliman, a layman 
who was appointed by the little company for the purpose. 
Then he baptized the rest of the company, and thus laid the 
foundation for the first Baptist church in Providence, and 
on the American continent. Some of our writers have 
taken no little pains to apologize for this unusual transac- 
tion, but in my opinion, it was just such a course as 

ALL COMPANIES OF BELIEVERS WHO WISH TO FORM A 
CHURCH IN SUCH EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD 

PURSUE.'' And he adds, " it would be difficult at this day 
to make a complete list of the Baptist communities which 
have sprung from this ancient and prolific mother.'' Pages 
441, 442, 450, 459. This occurred in the year 1639, as is 
evident from the statement of the Baptist historians whom 
we have ah-eady quoted, and to whom we now again refer in 
the following extracts. 

" Mr. Williams had been accused before of embracing 
principles which tended to anabaptism; and in March, 
1639, he was baptized by one of his brethren, and then he 
baptized about ten more. But in Jul?/ following, such 

16 Benedict's History of the Baptists, vol. i. 475. 



OBJECTIONS CUNSIDERED. 189 



scruples were raised in Ms mind about it, that he refrained 
from such administrations among them. Mr. Williams dis- 
covers in his writings, that as sacrifices and other acts of 
worship were omitted by the people of Grod, while his temple 
lay in ruins; and that they were restored again by im- 
mediate direction from heaven, so that some such direction 
was necessary to restore the ordinances of baptism, and the 
supper, since the desolation of the church in mystical 
Babylon. But these cases are far from being parallel; for 
the altar of Grod, in one place in the land of Canaan, was the 
only place where acceptable sacrifices could then be offered; 
while the Christian church is not confined to any place, but 
Christ is with his saints wherever they meet in his name; 
and he says to his ministers, Gro ye, and teach all nations, 
baptizing them, &c., and lo, I am with you always, even 
unto the end of the world. And these promises being only 
unto the children of God, in the way of observing all his 
commandments, let them be ordained by whom they may. 
As the priests who could not find a register of their lawful 
descent from Aaron were put from the priesthood; "so those 
who are born again are the only priesthood whom Christ 
owns under the gospel.'^ ^^ Such a baptism Mr. "Williams 
himself considered worthless and invalid, and hence "re- 
frained from such administrations'' among his brethren, 

THEREBY INVALIDATING THE WHOLE SUCCESSION OE IM- 
MERSIONISTS FROM HIM IN THIS COUNTRY. 

That Mr. Williams regarded his baptism by Holliman 
invalid, is evident from other testimony. " Mr. Williams 
and many of his company, a few months since, were in all 
haste rebaptized, and denied communion with all others; 
and now he has come to question his second baptism, not 
being able to derive the authority for it from the apostles, 

! 

^"^ Backus's Church Hist. New England, c. iii. 50, 51. Norton's Hist, of 
New England, published in 1069. Also, Winthrop's Journal. 



190 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



otherwise than by the ministers of England, (whom he 
judged to be ill authority,) so as he conceived God would 
raise some apostolic power/' Says Scott of Eoger Williams, 
^'I walked with him in the Baptist way, about three or four 
months, in which time he broke from the society, and de- 
clared at large the grounds and reasons of it, that their 
BAPTISM COULD NOT BE RIGHT, bccausc it was not ad- 
ministered by an apostle." ^^ Thus, in March 1639, Roger 
Williams is rebaptized by a layman; in July of the same 
year, according to Backus, and in "three or four months'' 
after, according to Scott, he becomes dissatisfied with his 
second baptism, and breaks from the society, because his 
baptism " was not administered by an apostle." Mr. Backus, 
however, opposes the views and course adopted by Roger 
Williams subsequently to his rebaptism, and makes a strong 
but fruitless effort to establish its validity. He makes a 
rule, unsupported by reason, Scripture, or the practice of 
the church, by which he wishes to establish the exclusive 
authority of the Baptist ministry to administer the sacra- 
ments of Christianity. The rule is this : " The promises of 
God belong only to his children, in the way of obeying all 
his commandments, let them be ordained by whom they 
may." But who baptized Roger Williams ? Why, Deacon 
HoUiman, a layman, baptized by sprinkling, in infancy. 
And in order to indicate the authority of this layman to bap- 
tize, Mr. Backus observes : " Those who are born again are 
the only priesthood whom Christ owns under the gospel." 
But being born again, is not a sufficient ground of authority 
to "ordain" and baptize. It is an indispensable prerequisite 
to the validity of baptism, that the administrator be called, 

18 Winthrop's Journal. Knowles's Memoir of R. Williams, pp. 170, 
171, as quoted in a small tract entitl d, "An Inquiry into the Antiquity 
of the Baptist Church. By Geo. W. Langhorno, of the Virginia Con- 
ference," — a masterly refutation of the objection we are considering. 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 191 



and sent, by the Holy Grhost, to preach the gospel. " G-o 
ye into all the world, and preach my gospel to every creature, 
baptizing them, &c.^' And Mr. Backus himself refers to this 
great commission as the divine authority of the minister of 
Christ to administer the sacraments. But Ezekiel Holliman 
was a layman, and consequently under no circumstances, 
was he a proper person to administer the sacrament of bap- 
tism. ^^ Roger Williams had sense enough to discover this 
flaw in his rebaptism, and so repudiated it altogether, and 
dissolved his connection with the church erected upon so 
spurious a foundation. Here, then, in the first place, the 
first administrator of baptism is a layman. Nor is this all : 
this administrator was baptized by sprinkling. Nor is this 
all : he was baptized in infancy. Nor is this all : Mr. 
Williams himself subsequently acknowledged his mistake in 
the whole matter, and withdrew from the society of Holli- 
man. Nor is this all: Mr. Backus observes, ^Hhat he 
(Williams) was introduced into the ministry in the Church 
of England, but he soon found that he could not in con- 
science conform to many things in their worship, and there- 
fore came over to this country, and arrived at Boston, in 
February, in 1631 -J'^^ so the Baptist church in this country 
primarily originated in the Church of England ! Nor is this 
all : where was the Baptist Church for sixteen hundred and 
thirty-nine years ? Professor Knowles declares, that E-oger 
Williams "founded i\ie first Baptist church in America, and 



19 In no circumstances of necessity can a layman assume authority to 
administer the sacraments. The only proper administrator is the man 
who is called of God to preach the gospel; and if there be no proper au- 
thority in the church to ordain him to the offices of his holy calling, he 
may proceed de novo, to administer the sacraments, and do all the work 
of the ministry. Ezekiel Holliman was not so called, and consequently 
Roger Williams's rebaptism was radically defective. 

20 Hist. Church New England, p. 35. 



192 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



the second^ as it is stated, in the Britisli Empire." ^ Con- 
sequently there was no Baptist church in America, and in 
the British Empire, before these churches were founded ! 

The history of Roger Williams, as the founder of the 
Baptist Church in America, involves the Baptist Church in 
inextricable perplexity, because, at a single stroke, it over- 
throws ah origine the Baptist Church, and invalidates all the 
subsequent administrations of the Baptist clergy, whether of 
ordination, baptism, the eucharist, preaching, or any other 
service, constitutionally or conventionally connected with the 
office of the properly authenticated minister of Christ. We 
have seen the fruitless effort of Mr. Backus to prevent these 
disastrous consequences. Mr. Broaddus, an, eminent Bap- 
tist minister of Virginia, in his reply to "Slicer on Bap- 
tism," also attempts to destroy the force of this deduction. 
But he is more unfortunate than Mr. Backus, for he admits 
that all psedohaptist ministers are qualified to administer 
the sacraments. "I grant, sir," says he, "that if a man 
had not been immersed, he may immerse others, and his 
neglect of his own duty, may not disqualify him from assist- 
ing in discharge of others." Therefore, Slicer replies, 
"Elder Broaddus being judge, all paedobaptist ministers 
are qualified to give the ordinance by immersion." Though 
immersion were in truth the only valid mode of baptism — 
though all we have said of other modes of baptism were con- 
trary to reason and the Scriptures — though the Baptist 
ministry were descended from the apostles by an unbroken 
and consecutive chain of immersionists — though the whole 
history of the recent origin of the Baptist Church in Europe 
and America were utterly false — and though infant baptism, 
sprinkling, and pouring, were innovations made by the 
]:)9edobaptist church — yet, according to Mr. Broaddus, im- 

21 Memoir of Williams, p. 165. 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 193 



mersion at the hands of a psedohaptist 'minister is valid bap- 
tism. And thus, the objection, ^^ Immersion at the hands 
of an administrator, who has not been immersed, is not valid 
baptism," is refuted by the history and concessions of the 
Baptist Church. The history of Roger Williams is a stand- 
ing refutation of the bold assumption of the Baptist Church 
in our country to exclusive right to administer the sacra- 
ments of Christianity. He pretended to no commission 
directly from heaven to baptize by immersion. He wrought 
no miracle to establish his claims. So far from it, he re- 
gards his rebaptism at the hands of Holliman invalid, 
"because it was not administered by an apostle." Boger 
Williams was neither an apostle, nor baptized by an apostle, 
but by a layman, and he even repudiated the ministration 
of this layman. Nor did he assume the right to do the 
work of the ministry de novo — had he done so, even then 
the whole question of the exclusive validity of immersion 
were open for discussion. 

The " Missouri Baptist" is not more successful than Mr. 
Backus and Mr. Broaddus in meeting this difficulty. " Under 
other circumstances they would gladly have availed them- 
selves of a regular administrator of the ordinance ; but situ- 
ated as they were, they naturally and wisely concluded that 
he who requireth this service will not annex conditions in- 
compatible with their obedience, and, of course, will accept 
of their right intention in the performance." Bight inten- 
tion ! Then all the ministrations of pasdobaptists are valid, 
for they believe that immersion is a valid mode of baptism. 
Lapse of time cannot constitute an ordinance valid which 
was invalid in the beginning, and invalidity is transmitted 
throughout the succession of the Baptist ministrj^ in this 
country. 

Perplexity is now extreme. But hope beams faintly from 
another quarter. We are told that the line of succession 
17 



194 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



was transported from Europe to America. And suppose it 
was — the exotic is as spurious as the native plant. Was 
Peter de Bruis an apostle ? No. And who baptized him ? 
Cannot tell. Was Munzer an apostle, or in regTilar succes- 
sion by ordination from the apostles ? No. And who bap- 
tized him? Cannot tell. The darkness is impenetrable. 
Who was the founder of the Baptist Church in Europe ? 
In what part of the world, in what age, and under what cir- 
cumstances did he exist ? If the pages of history reveal the 
truth, no better origin of the Baptist Church and ministry 
in our country can be given than what we have given. If 
a better origin existed than what we have presented, it would 
have been adduced by Mr. Backus, who wrote the early 
history of the Baptist Church in New England. Let us 
then refer again to the pages of this Baptist historian, who 
has given such satisfactory information respecting the founda- 
tion of " the first Baptist church in America, and in the 
British Empire.'' 

The origin of the second Baptist church in America. 
*^ Mr. John Clarke was a preacher of the gospel at Newport, 
until he formed a Baptist Church there in 1644, which has 
continued by succession ever since." ^^ Who was John 
Clarke ? and whence did he derive authority to transmit a 
^^ succession" of clerical ordinations from Newport? The 
circumstances of his baptism and ordination are wholly 
omitted. In the '^ Encyclopedia of Eeligious Knowledge,'' 
it is stated, " Mr. Clarke was soon employed as a preacher, 
and in 1644 he formed a church at Newport and became its 
pa&tor. This was the second Baptist Church which was 
established in America." ^ We have no information con- 
cerning his immersion. Like Roger Williams, it is very 
probable, his authority to baptize commenced with himself. 

22 Backus's Church History, c. iii. 52. 23 p. 379. 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 195 



The third Baptist churcli in America. "While Mr 
Clarke was in England, a new Baptist cliurcli was formed 
out of the first church in Newport, holding to the laying on 
of hands after baptism, about the year 1656, which was the 
third Baptist church in America, and is still continued b^ 
succession." ^* Whether the " succession" from this church 
be from the administrations of Mr. Clarke, or otherwise, it 
is doubtful and immaterial, as must at once be obvious to 
the reader. 

The fourth Baptist, church in America. " The first Bap- 
tist church in Wales was formed near Swansea, in that 
country, in 1649. Mr. John Miles was their chief leader, 
and they increased to about three hundred members, by the 
year 1662, when he was ejected out of his place by a cruel 
act of parliament, which turned two thousand teachers out 
of their places in one day, for refusing fully to conform with 
the Church of England." Here then the first Baptist church 
in Wales grew up in the Church of England, and dates its 
origin in the year 1649. Mr. Backus proceeds : " He 
(John Miles) then came over with the book of the records 
he had kept there, and it remains in our Swansea to this 
day. And at the house of John Butterworth, in Rehoboth, 
in 1663, John Miles, elder, James Brown, and'several others, 
covenanted together as a church of Christ, to obey him id 
all his ordinances and commandments. In 1667, the court 
granted them the town of Swansea, where the church has 
continued by succession ever since, and is the fourth Baptist 
church in America." ^^ Thus, the succession of ministers, 
whoever they were, from the fourth Baptist church in 
America, is derived from the Church of England, and hence 
is no better than the paedobaptist succession derived from 
the same church. 

^ Backus's Church History, pp. 108-109. ^ Ibid. 93-94. 



196 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



The Jiftli Baptist cluirch in America. <^The fifth was 
formed in Massachusetts/' under the following circumstances. 
A certain Thomas Grould, it seems, had a child born in 
1656, and ^^ could not bring him to be sprinkled.'' He was 
willing, however, to commune with the church in Charles- 
town, ^^if they would let him do it without carrying his 
child to an ordinance which he had no faith in." But 
they could come to no compromise. "At length three Bap- 
tist brethren came over from England, recommended from 
churches there, and met him and others in private houses. 
And on May 28, 1665, Thomas Gould and others joined in 
solemn covenant, &c.;" ^e ^nd thus originated i\iQ fifth Bap- 
tist church in America. Here is Thomas Gould, a lo.yman, 
and with him, "three Baptist brethren from England," most 
probably laymen, as Mr. Backus generally designates the 
office in the church when the person is an elder — and these 
laymen become the founders of the fifth Baptist church in 
America — a source of succession radically defective. 

The sixth Baptist church in America. "A small church 
was formed out of that (the church in Newport) in December, 
1671, holding to the seventh-day Sabbath, which yet con- 
tinues. This made the sixth Baptist church in America." ^"^ 
The origin of the church in Newport has already been con- 
sidered. 

Thus, these six original Baptist churches in America 
derived their origin from the Church of England, im- 
mediately or remotely, by separation or ejectment, through 
elders or laymen, and so, in some cases, succession is radi- 
cally defective, in others only a regular paedobaptist suc- 
cession — in all wholly destitute of succession from the 
apostles, which alone could support the assumption of ex- 
clusive right to administer baptism by immersion. Therefore, 

26 Backus's Cliurch History, p. 94, 95. 27 n^i^. 109. 



OBJECTIONS conside'red. 197 



the Baptist church cannot deny the validity of the administra- 
tions of the paedobaptist churches, without invalidating her 
own. Further, if regular clerical ordination be indispensable 
to the validity of baptism, then immersion by a pesdohajptist 
minister is preferable to immersion at the hands of a Baptist 
minister, since the founders of the paedohaptist churches were 
REGULARLY ORDAINED ELDERS, while the founders of the 
Baptist Church were, for the most part, laymen, having no 
authority to preach the gospel and administer the sacraments. 
Indeed, the whole question before us is surrendered in 
the unqualified and candid concessions of Mr. Benedict, who 
is the highest historical authority among the Baptists; and 
the reader, I am sure, will be not a little surprised at the 
following extracts from the ^^ History of the Baptists'' by 
this celebrated author. He first gives ^^ one line of the Bap- 
tist succession," as follows : — ^ 



Date. 

Waldenses and Ricards. 1450 

Hussites' 1420 

Waldo and his followers 1176 

Amoldists 1150 

Henricians 1140 

Petrobrussians ... 1135 

irians... 1049 



Date. 

Gundulphians 1025 

Paterines 945 

Vaudois 714 

Paulicians 653 

Donatists 311 

Novatians 250 

(See page 47, note.) 

This, Mr. Benedict calls " one line or chain of Baptist 
succession," in which no two linhs are united, as he admits 
himself in the following pages. Hear him : " The Novatians 
hroke off from the Church of Rome in 250; — the Donatists 
began their operations at Carthage, a little after 300; — the 
Paulicians arose within the bounds of the Greek Church 
about the middle of the seventh century;-— the Paterines 
began in Italy in the tenth century; — the Waldenses and 
Albigenses became more publicly known about 1165; — ^the 



198 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



Petit brussians arose in the South of France about 1110; — 
Berengarius, the founder of the Berengarians, arose in France 
1050 ; — Henry^ the founder of the Henricians, appears as a 
reformer about 1116; — Arnold, the founder of the Arnold- 
ists, appears as a reformer about 1137; — the Hussites, so 
named from John Huss, who appeared in the character of a 
reformer in 1407/' (Pp. 51-53.) And he observes (p. 50) 
of these reformers, " they were all dissenters from the great 
national churches.^' Dissenters ! then they were all baptized 
IN INFANCY, and consequently they must have baptized 
themselves in order to become reformers in the sense of Mr. 
Benedict. Each instance of dissent was a new era, and 
furnished a neio origin. And Mr. Benedict, in this par- 
ticular, is the most consistent and candid Baptist historian 
on record. Says he, "I shall not attempt to trace a 
CONTINUOUS LINE OF CHURCHES, as we Can for a few cen- 
turies past in Europe and America. This is a hind of suc- 
cession TO WHICH WE HAVE NEVER LAID CLAIM ; and of 
course^ WE MAKE NO EFFORT TO PROVE IT. We PLACE NO 
KIND OF RELIANCE ON THIS SORT OF TESTIMONY to establish 

the SOUNDNESS of our faith, or the VALIDITY of our ad- 
vninistrationsJ" (P. 51.) Well done, Benedict ! the contest 
is ended ! — and never let the Baptists question again " the 
soundness of the faith, or the validity of the* administrations" 
of their paedobaptist brethren. And yet one quotation more. 
Dr. Wayland, one of the most distinguished divines of the 
Baptist Church in America, observes: "It is convenient, as 
a matter of church order, that there should be some general 
rule, and that this rite be administered by a clergyman, and 
it would he naturally performed hy one who had himself 
heen baptized hy immersion. But if those things be absent 
from necessity or ignorance, they alter not the fact that the 
person who has been immersed on profession of faith, is, as 
I understand it, a baptized believer. This is a very common 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 199 



case with us in this city. Congregationalists, Episcopalians, 
and Methodists, here, quite frequently baptize persons on 
profession of their faith. We consider them as baptized 
believers, and when they request it, admit them upon a 
simple relation of their experience. Indeed, were not this 
admitted, I know not to what absurdities we should be re- 
duced. If the obedience of Christ depends upon the ordi- 
nance being administered by a regular baptized administrator, 
where are we to stop, and how shall we know who is regularly 
baptized; or who has obeyed Christ? All this looks to me 
absolutely trivial, and wholly aside from the principles 
which, as Protestants and Baptists, we have always con- 
sidered -as essential to Christian liberty. It seems to me 
assuming Puseyism under another name; or, in fact, going 
back to the ecclesiastical errors of the Catholic Church, Such 
are my views. How they meet the views of others I know 
not, but to me these principles of Christian freedom are 
above all price.^' This high authority shows that the Bap- 
tists themselves admit the validity of immersion at the hands 
of a psedobaptist minister who has not been baptized by im- 
mersion, and therefore persons in the psedobaptist churches, 
who have been immersed by paedobaptist ministers, have 
been properly baptized. Thus, this old, plausible, and 
popular objection falls to the ground. 

But this is not all. If the paedobaptist minister who has 
not been immersed may administer valid baptism, one of 
the sacraments, he may administer the Lord's supper also, 
the other sacrament; and preach the truth as it is in Christ; 
and have the pastoral oversight of the flock of Christ; in a 
word, do all the work of the minister of Christ. There is 
no more reason why the Baptists should decline receiving 
the communion at the hands of a paedobaptist minister, than 
there is that they should decline communing with persons 
who have been immersed by a paedobaptist minister. This 



200 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



much at least is conceded by the Baptists themselves — that 
all in the paedobaptist churches who have been immersed, 
have been validly baptized; and consequently, that all such 
may as validly receive the Lord's supper at the hands of 
paedobaptist ministers; and as the Baptists themselves have 
been immersed, they also may receive the Lord's supper in 
the psedobaptist churches, without sin, and without blame, 
upon their own principles — and we welcome them all to the 
enjoyment of the privilege. 

Eighthly. It has been said by the Baptists, and the reader 
probably has seen the declaration, that ^'as late as 1643, in 
the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, sprinkling was 
substituted for immersion by a majority of one — twenty-five 
voting for sprinkling, and twenty-four for immersion. This 
small majority was obtained by the earnest request of Dr. 
Lightfoot, who had acquired great influence in that As- 
sembly." This statement of the matter is an entire mis- 
representation, as we shall now prove. 1. Dr. Lightfoot, in 
his journal, says, that the matter in dispute was, ^^ sprinhlhig 
being granted, whether dipping should he tolerated with it." 
The question was, not whether sprinkling should be substi- 
tuted for immersion, for sprinkling was all along received as 
lawful, but whether immersion also should be admitted as 
valid. In a word, the question was, shall "dipping be ex- 
cluded," and sprinkling be invariably practised. Twenty- 
four voted against excluding immersion; that is, against 
prohibiting immersion to those who might prefer it. As in 
the present day, the Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and Metho- 
dist churches leave the choice of mode with the subject of 
baptism, so the twenty-four above voted that the same 
privilege might be granted to the subject in their day; and 
hence, it can no more be maintained that the Assembly 
wished to substitute sprinkling for immersion, than it can 
be maintained, that any in the present day, who prefer 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 201 



sprinkling to immersion, wish to substitute sprinkling in 
its place. Suppose a case : — The question comes up before 
the legislative or General Conference of the Methodist 
Church — ^'Sprinkling being received as lawful, shall we 
admit immersion also as lawful ?'' That is, all admit the 
lawfulness of sprinkling, but some vote to allow immersion 
to those who may prefer it to sprinkling. No suhstitution 
is proposed, only the vote of preference in certain cases is 
carried. And so in the Westminster Assembly, twenty-four 
voted that the right of preference might be granted to the 
subject. And yet these twenty-four,- the minority, did not 
deny the validity of sprinhling to those who might prefer 
it to immersion, as we shall now see. 2 When the propo- 
sition was put in such a form as include the lawfulness of 
immersion in the cases of those who might prefer it, the 
Assembly, ''with great unanimity,^' declared, that as to the 
mode of baptizing, it is "not only lawful but also sufficient, 
and most expedient, to be by POURING or sprinkling water 
on the face of the child, without adding any other ceremony. ^^ 
Now, how is it possible to believe, that twenty-four voted 
against substituting sprinkling for immersion, and yet should 
vote for the lawfulness, sufficiency, and expediency of sprin- 
kling? 3. But nothing final was determined by the vote. 
"After that vote," says Lightfoot, "when we had done all, 
we concluded nothing about it, but the business was recom- 
mitted." 4. We have other evidence in the premises. 
The time when this vote was taken is 1643. Now twenty- 
three years before this time, the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth, 
and nineteen years after their landing, Roger Williams, the 
founder of the Baptist Church in America, was immersed 
by HoUiman. If immersion had been the common practice, 
the Pilgrim fathers would have brought it with them, and 
no diflSculty then would have existed in the mind of Roger 
Williams for the want of a proper administrator. Besides, 



202 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



Richard Blount, in the reign of King Charles 11., went 
from England to the Netherlands to be immersed, and then 
returned, that he might place the Baptist Church on what 
he deemed the proper foundation. Could these two events 
have happened in Baptist history, had sprinkling been sub- 
stituted for immersion but a few years before ? 

Ninthly. "Immersion is baptism, and hence it is absurd 
to talk of a mode of baptism.'' The passage of Scripture, 
"One Lord, one faith, and one baptism,'' is often adduced 
in support of this objection. In the first place, it is begging 
the question, to say that immersion is the baptism referred 
to in this scripture. In the second place, the Scriptures 
speak of " baptism." ^s In the third place, the meaning of 
the "one baptism" is wholly misunderstood by the objector. 
It comprehends spiritual baptism, which is of the Holy 
Grhost, and outward formal baptism, which is " of water," ^^ 
both agreeing in one and the same design, namely, consecra- 
tion to the service of Grod. Here are two baptisms, the one 
typifying the other. Thus, there are two kinds of faith, 
historical and saving, and yet they both agree in the end, 
and are parts of the "o?ie faith." And there are three 
persons in the Grodhead, but they are the "owe Lord." In 
the fourth place, if baptism do not admit of mode, how can 
it be administered at all ? If baptism imply action of any 
kind, action is the mode of baptism. And thus, if im- 
mersion is baptism, immersion is the mode of immersion, 
which is absurd — that is, the sacrament, and the mode of 
administering it, are one and the same thing, which is 
absurd. The nature and design of baptism are essentially 
distinct from the mode of baptism; and the nature and 
design being supposed, then the proper subject, the proper 
administrator, the proper form, and any mode agreeable to 

23 Heb. vi. 2. 29 John iii. 5. 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 203 



the subject, are essential to tlie proper observance of the 
ordinance. As baptism properly means a washing, this 
washmg must be set forth by some mode, but the meaning 
of baptism, and the mode of baptism, are different things. 
But if haptizo has the exclusive meaning of immerse, and 
signifies nothing but action, then it has no meaning in a 
gospel sense. That is, if it mean nothing but immerse, and 
you cannot separate the action from the meaning, nor add 
any other meaning to the word, then the ordinance is nothing 
but a senseless ceremony, which were to exclude it from the 
Christian dispensation. K however wash be admitted as the 
meaning of haptizo, then any mode that shall set forth this 
meaning, may be adopted without invalidating other modes 
that set forth the same thing. 

Tenthly. " There is no cross in sprinMing.^^ It is urged 
that there is a cross in being immersed, and, therefore, im- 
mersion is to be preferred to sprinkling. G-roundless as 
this assertion really is, it is surprising to see what an in- 
fluence it has over many sincere Christians. A partial ex- 
amination will be enough to convince us that in this instance 
the Baptists confound the cross of Christ, in a true scrip- 
tural sense, with a spontaneous or constitutional repugnance 
to being plunged into water — a resistance wholly physical 
and instinctive — not having in it any reluctance of a moral 
nature. Thus, in a frigid zone, and in our own climate in 
certain seasons of the year, it is perfectly natural to shrink 
from being immersed in cold water; while in a torrid zone, 
and in our own climate in the summer, the languishing sys- 
tem instinctively desires the use of the cool, refreshing water. 
Besides, in the case of the delicate and refined female, there 
is the instinctive timidity and repugnance of her sex to be 
taken into the question, in the case of immersion at any 
time, but especially in the sight of men. In a word, what 
is here called a cross is nothing more than an instinctive or 



204 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



natural propensity to resist any sudden hazard of our safety 
which Grod himself has implanted in our constitution — an 
instinct wholly involuntary, and without the co-operation of 
the will, reason, or the sense of duty, and which, when per- 
mitted to control, often utterly precludes that devotional 
serenity of mind which is indispensable to the proper dis- 
charge of religious obligation. In all this there is not one 
element essential to the idea of ^Hhe cross," or the duty of 
^^ taking up the cross," in the scriptural sense of the terms. 
The Baptists imagine they find a cross where, in the nature 
of things, there can be none. There can be no cross where 
there is no duty ; and there may be suffering where there is 
no cross. It must first be proved that immersion is made 
binding upon the believer, before the idea of " the cross'^ can 
enter into immersion. But this is the very point in ques- 
tion ; and to argue from an instinctive repugnance to being 
immersed to the obligation to be immersed, is begging the 
question. It would be just as logical to argue that because 
man has an instinctive repugnance to putting his hand into 
the fire, therefore it is his duty to put his hand into the fire. 
But prove that it is his duty, in any specific case, as in mar- 
tyrdom, to submit to the operation of fire, and it becomes a 
cross to do so, that is, he must resist the natural repugnance to 
fire for Christ's sake : ^' for whosoever shall save his life shall 
lose it." Again, it would be just as logical to argue that 
because man has an instinctive repugnance to death, there- 
fore it is his duty to destroy his life. But prove, first, that 
it is his duty to die in any specific case, as for " Christ," or 
^' the brethren," and it becomes ^' a cross" to do so ; that 
is, he must resist the instinctive repugnance to death for the 
sake of Christ, or the brethren : "^ if any man will come 
after me, let him deni/ himself and take up Ms cross and fol- 
low me, for — whosoever shall lose his life fir my sake shall 
find it." Matt. xvi. 24-25. Why, in such a case, should a 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 205 



jnan resist his repugnance to death and consent to die ? Be- 
cause it is made his duty to do so. Where it is not his duty 
to sacrifice life, instinctive repugnance to death cannot be 
made the basis of ^^ a cross," but is an impulse wisely im- 
planted in our nature for the ^preservation of life during 
Grod's good pleasure. To make the cases analogous, and so 
make out ^^ a cross" in immersion, the Baptists must first prove 
that immersion, as the mode of baptism, is solemnly enjoined 
as a duty upon every believer. But this is the very point 
in controversy — a point to be settled before " a cross," in 
the proper sense of the term, can be recognised in immersion. 
Thus, until immersion be proved to be enjoined as a duty, 
it is denied that there is, properly speaking, any ^^ cross" in 
immersion, and so the objection utterly fails. 

Eleventhly. "We come now to the accommodating argument 
of the Baptists, which we shall state in the fairest light, and 
consider at length. ^^All orthodox denominations agree 
that immersion is a valid mode ; but all do not agree that 
sprinkling and pouring are valid modes ; therefore, that is 
the best mode about which all agree. In other words : the 
four prominent denominations of Christians agree that im- 
mersion is a valid mode, while but three of them agree that 
sprinkling and pouring are valid modes; therefore there 
can be no doubt with regard to the validity of immersion." 
This is the most plausible, captivating, and popular argu- 
ment ever adduced in favor of immersion; yet never was 
there an argument more sophistical and unsound. It is 
rendered the more plausible by the familiar illustration of 
three deeds or notes, representing the three popular modes 
of baptism, namely, sprinkling, pouring, and immersion. 
Four judges attest to the validity of one of the deeds, while 
three of the judges declare that both of the other deeds are 
just as good. Three of the judges say there can be no 
doubt of the genuineness of two of the notes, while one of 

18 



206 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



the judges says they are counterfeit altogether : but all four 
judges agree that the genuineness of one of the notes is un- 
questionable. Therefore, the deed or note whose genuine- 
ness is attested to by all the judges is preferable to the 
notes or deeds which are sustained by only three of the 
judges. All this we pronounce to be sophistry, which a 
moment's honest reflection may expose. 

The sophistry in the argument is this ; the Baptists con- 
found the admission of the validity of immersion as a mode, 
of baptism, with their own views of its exclusiveness. They 
lose sight of their particular dogma in the general admis- 
sion of the paedobaptists. The paedobaptists as strenuously 
oppose the - exclusive YSilidit J oi immersion as the Baptists 
do the validity of sprinkling and pouring. There is no 
unanimity among the judges. He that is baptized by im- 
mersion, vainly imagining that he is confirmed in his opinion 
by the corroborating admission of the paedobaptists, does 
in fact set aside the judgment of three of the judges. But 
he who is baptized by immersion, believing it to be a valid 
mode, and at the same time admitting the equal validity of 
sprinkling and pouring, is confirmed in his opinions and 
practice by the judgment of three of the judges, and sup- 
ported by the concession of the fourth judge in the case. 
For the Baptists have been forced to concede, as we have 
seen, that immersion at the hands of a paedobaptist is valid 
baptism ; and, therefore, the four judges agree in the validity 
of immersion at the hands of a paedobaptist, while the man 
who believes in exclusive immersion is supported by only 
one of the judges. It is admitted that immersion is valid; 
but this is not adpaitted upon the ground occupied by the 
Baptists, namely, exclusiveness of immersion, but because 
mere mode is regarded as not essential; and hence the 
validity of immersion at the hands of a Baptist does not 
support their pretensions, nor destroy the validity of immer- 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 207 



sion at the hands of a paedobaptist. Immersion is as valid 
at the hands of a paedobaptist as it is at the hands of a Bap- 
tist, because the validity of immersion, as we have seen, does 
not depend upon the manner by which the administrator 
himself was baptized, and thus the note or deed is as good 
in the hands of the paedobaptist as it is in the hands of the 
Baptist. 

The only question now to be considered respects the testis 
mony of the judges concerning the validity of sprinkling 
and pouring. Three of the judges regard them as valid 
modes, and one of the judges does not so regard them; 
hence the weight of testimony is in favor of sprinkling and 
pouring. Besides, he who admits the validity of these 
modes, and yet prefers immersion, may obtain it in a valid 
form at the hands of a paedobaptist. Indeed, upon the prin- 
ciples of the Baptists he may obtain immersion at the hands 
of a paedobaptist by a more regular succession than he can 
at the hands of a Baptist — the Baptists themselves being 
judges. Moreover, immersion at the hands of a paedobap- 
tist obtains all the advantages of free and open communion. 
The Baptists cannot deny this without unchurching them- 
selves and invalidating their own administrations. Indeed, 
upon the principles of the Baptists, they have no right to 
administer the sacraments at all, and no ground on which to 
sustain the dogma of ^' close communion,^^ since the doctrine 
of exclusive immersion is not of apostolic origin and succes- 
sion, and the original immersions of the Baptist Church were 
administered by laymen — as has been proved. Nor is this 
all : upon the principles of the Baptists, they are not properly 
constituted a judge in the premises, and the question must 
be left with the proper judges for final settlement. 

The sophism of the Baptists under consideration is ana- 
logous to two very familiar sophisms in the religious world, 



208 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



one of the Jews, and the other of the Romish church. 
That of the Jews : " Both Jews and Christians confess that 
the religion of Moses came from Grod ; but the Jews do not 
believe in the divinity of the Christian religion ; the safest 
way, therefore, is to hold what both sides believe as true.^^ 
And yet no one becomes a Jew from the force of this con- 
clusion. The sophism of the Papist : " Both the Romanists 
and the Reformed believe salvation may be had in the Church 
of Rome ; but the Romanists do not believe -it may be had 
in the churches of the Reformed : therefore, it is safest to 
adhere to Popery." And yet who becomes a Romanist from 
the force of this conclusion ? The sophism of the Baptists : 
'■^ The Baptist and paedobaptist churches believe that immer- 
sion is valid ; but the Baptist Church does not believe in 
the validity of sprinkling and pouring ; therefore, the safest 
mode of baptism is that of immersion.'^ And many, very 
many are convinced by this sophism in favor of immersion, 
though there is no more reason in it than is contained in the 
sophisms above. The fact, that the great majority of Chris- 
tians in the world are not Jews, and the powerful arguments 
written in defence of Christianity, effectually refute the 
sophism of the Jews : the revolutions of Divine Providence, 
the rapid progress and unparalleled prosperity of Protestant 
nations, and the testimony of enlightened generations, com- 
bine to refute the sophism of the Papists : and so the united 
testimony of the pasdobaptist churches, from apostolic times 
to the present, fairly refutes the sophism of the Baptists. 
Indeed, the concession of the Baptists, that immersion at the 
hands of a paedobaptist is valid baptism, invests immersion so 
administered with all the force of the Baptists' idea of ex- 
dusiveness, and thus in fact the concession alone refutes the 
favorite sophism of the Baptists ; for immersion at the hands 
of a paedobaptist is conceded by the Baptists to be valid, and 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 209 



consequently immersion, one of the deeds, may be obtained 
in a genuine form in the paedobaptist churches. ^° 

Before closing our consideration of the mode of baptism, 
we will make one more remark. To prefer immersion as a 
mode of baptism is admissible, but to regard it as the only 
valid mode of baptism is sujperstitious. In the former case 
it is preferring a mode in itself non-essential, but in the 
latter case it is investing an external rite with a virtue ex- 
clusively inherent in itself — and this is elemental in Popery. 
The efficacy of an ordinance depends solely upon the in- 
fluence of the Holy Ghost that accompanies or follows its 
administration, irrespective of the mode. The benefit of an 
ordinance does not originate in any essential connection of 
the mode with the ordinance, but in the divine blessing 
alone, imparted at the time of administration or thereafter; 
and, therefore, we infer that mode is non-essential ; and that 
exclusiveness is not only superstitious, but dangerous, since 
superstition tends to abuse. It betrays " unwary souls" into 
a delusive confidence. Immersion, as an external rite, and 
its concomitant error, "close communion^' are the promi- 
nent characteristics of the Baptist Church ; and wherever 
this is the case there is danger of sectarian idolatry, and 
superstitious reliance in rites and ceremonies. Exclusive 
immersion is a ^^yoke of bondage," which the Baptists have 



30 We will here correct a misrepresentation often made by the Baptists, 
in public and in private, "that while the psedobaptists immerse, they do 
not believe in the validity of immersion." Why, the Baptists proceed, in 
the sophism above, upon the psedobaptists' admission of the validity of 
immersion, and it is ungenerous now to charge them with insincerity. 
Besides, we have only to refer the reader to our Discipline. " Let every 
adult person, and the parents of every child to be baptized, have the 
choice either of immersion, sprinkling, or pouring." Methodist Discipline, 
p. 76. See also " Ministration of Baptism to Infants," ibid. p. 110. Also, 
" to adults," ibid. p. 115. The same references may be made to the 
Protestant Episcopal Prayer Book. 



210 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 



'^ added" to the " necessary" things contained in the Book 
of Life. To this tendency is to be ascribed in part that 
miserable, pernicious, and destructive heresy of baptismal 
regeneration, which has recently sprung up in the Baptist 
Church, and has extended to an alarming and melancholy ex- 
tent, particularly in the Western country — a heresy, like all 
other heresies, at once gloomy, mournful, and desperate — 
I mean Camphellism. To the same source is to be ascribed 
the spirit of controversy on infant baptism, and immersion, 
which certain persons often commence in times of gracious 
revivals in the churches, when penitents should rather first 
be encouraged in seeking pardon, and young converts be 
settled in Christian experience and in things essential to 
their present peace and fitness for the sacramental seal, than 
have their minds perplexed, as they sometimes are, about a 
mere external rite, which obtrusive zeal itself admits is not 
essential to salvation. ^^ The river, the river ^^ really seems 
by some to be placed in the room of ^Hhe Saviour" — and often 
the young and fearful conscience has been injudiciously 
directed to the imagined necessity of being buried by bap- 
tism under water, before the heart has become prepared to 
be " buried by baptism into death.'^ 



PART III. 

Infant '§^im. 

CHAPTER I. 

THE GROUND OF INFANT BAPTISM. 

It is surprising that the right of infants to baptism ever 
should have been contested, or been made the cause of 
division in the church, under whose maternal care they are 
placed by Christ, and at whose altar they are presented by 
Christ as a model of piety and obedience to man. Nothing 
but blessing is connected with their early dedication to Grod 
in baptism. The universal formal recognition of the validity 
and obligation of infant baptism, with the proper subsequent 
instructions, would be attended with spiritual advantages to 
the infant, the church, and the world, obtained from no 
other means. 

It is the disposition of man to be self-deceived; and when 
once deception has induced mental habit, it is easy to shrink 
from an impartial and patient investigation of opposite 
ground, and difficult to relinquish opinions long and fondly 
cherished. We despair of communicating any information 
to ihose who may read the following pages with a prede- 
termination to reject every thing that may be in opposition 
to their views. We beseech the reader not to embrace or 
oppose what may be presented, merely because it is con- 
sistent or not with his opinions, but according as it appears to 
be true or false. We shall proceed carefully in the examina- 

211 



212 INFANT BAPTISM. 



tion of the deeply interesting subject before ns, under tbe 
statement of the following general proposition : The ground 

OF INFANT SALVATION IS THE GROUND OF INFANT BAP- 
TISM. We shall consider first^ the ground of infant sal- 
vation. 

1. The GROUND of infant salvation. 

The ground of salvation is the atonement of Christy as we 
have seen in a former part of this work. In the Divine 
government, the distributions of rewards and punishments 
is conditional. But on this ground, infants can receive 
neither reward nor punishment, since the conditionality of 
salvation is not applicable to them. That is, on the ground 
of conditionality, infants can neither be saved nor be lost, 
since the principles of free agency are inapplicable to their 
case. The infant cannot believe, therefore he cannot be saved ; 
he cannot sin, therefore he cannot be lost. Had no pro- 
vision been made to meet this difficulty, infidelity might 
have proposed this unanswerable objection to the church: 
" What becomes of infants ? They cannot believe, therefore 
they cannot be saved; they cannot sin, and therefore they 
cannot be lost. And since no provision has been made for 
them, what becomes of innocent, helpless, unconscious in- 
fants?" Had Christ, in the Old and the New Testaments, 
left the question of infant salvation here, the church and the 
world might weep in mournful silence over the final destiny 
of all children dying in infancy. Indeed there is a sect,* 
that has surpassed infidelity in insensibility, and declared 
that all infants dying in infancy are annihilated. But 
Christ, that he might protect the church against this appal- 
ling dilemma, as well as confound infidelity, in mercy has 
said, "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid 
them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven — and he 

' The Thomasites, a branch of the Campbellites. 



THE GROUND OF INFANT SALVATION. 213 



took them in his arms, and blessed them/^ In this com- 
prehensive declaration, their salvation is unconditionally 
secured. And as Christ simply- announced divine truths, 
established them by miracles, and then left them as great 
elemental doctrines of salvation for his apostles to explain 
more at large, we have the explanation and vindication of 
infant salvation clearly set forth by the apostle Paul: ^^As 
by the offence of one judgment came upon all men unto 
condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free 
gift came upon all men unto justification of life.'^ ^ That 
is, all the unconditional evils involved in the sin of Adam 
are, in the case of infants dying in infancy, unconditionally 
removed by the death of Christ : dying, they are regenerated, 
sanctified, and exalted to heaven, without faith; and living, 
they unconditionally obtain a gracious aid, by which, in due 
time, as free agents, they may conditionally obtain '^justifi- 
cation unto life.'' As in the original creation of man, Grod 
so arranged the system of relations, that all Adam's posterity 
should be legally connected with him as their federal head, 
so in his infinite wisdom, he has constituted the redemptive 
system of relations in such a manner that Christ becomes 
the second Adam. By the union of divinity with humanity, 
on the laws of grace, and under the sanctions of justice, in 
offering up himself as a sacrifice for Adam's transgression, 
Christ transfers the federal representation of children from 
Adam to himself, and on this ground he unconditionally 
justifies and saves all infants dying in infancy. The plan 
of grace substitutes this gracious connection in the place of 
the legal connection which subsisted in the first creation. 
That is, in order to prevent the dreadful consequences of 
legal union with Adam as a federal head, under the opera- 
tion of the moral law involved in sin under the Adamic 

2 Rom. V. 18. 



214 INFANT BAPTISM. 



law, Christ, uniting himself with humanity, associates the 
liuman race with himself, and so unconditionally justifies 
all infants while in an infant state, saves all without excep- 
tion, who die in infancy, and qualifies all for the relations 
of responsibility, who live to a responsible age. In a word, 
in view of the efficacy of the blood of Christ to cleanse and 
sanctify all dying in infancy; in view of the agency of the 
Holy Spirit in unconditionally regenerating all who die in 
infancy, that they may be qualified for heaven ; and in view 
of their right, on these grounds, to the kingdom of heaven, 
Christ declares, in the tenderest mercy — ''Of such is the 
kingdom of heaven.^' In a word, the ground of infant 
salvation is the sacrificial death of Christ. 

2. The ground of infant salvation is the ground 
OF infant baptism. That is, the institution of infant hap- 
tlsm, as expressive of the interest of infants in the atonement 
of Christ, is founded upon the atonement of Christ: their 
right to initiation into the Church of Christ, under the 
Christian dispensation, is founded upon the atonement of 
Christ. We shall present the argument at some length. 

It is not surprising that there should be various opinions 
respecting the ground of the right of infants to baptism, 
since men's views of baptism correspond to their theological 
doctrines, sound or unsound. And yet it is obvious, that 
those views of infant baptism only are correct, which are in 
harmony with evangelical truth. A statement, and brief 
consideration of the prominent views maintained on the 
subject, may not only be interesting to the general reader, 
but contribute materially to the establishment of the doctrine 
of infant baptism. These opinions are the following. 

First. That the right of infants to baptism ''depends upon 
previous election by G-od to salvation.'' <jroode on Baptism, 
p. 34. As in the very nature of evangelical truth, the same 
objections exist against infant, as against adult election — 



THE GROUND OF INFANT BAPTISM, 215 



that is, as unconditional election is not a doctrine sustained 
either by reason or by Scripture, and therefore cannot be 
made the ground of any right whatever, either in the case 
of the infant or the adult, we shall not stop longer to con- 
sider this opinion. 

Secondly. That the right of infants to baptism ^^ depends 
upon the prevision by Grod of future faith and repentance 
in the child, at a subsequent period of life.'' Ibid. 36. This 
is in principle the preceding opinion; and we only add, that 
the foreknowledge of Grod is made in no case the ground of 
right to the spiritual blessings and privileges of the covenant 
of grace. 

Thirdly. That the right of infants to baptism depends 
upon "a seed, or principle, or Jiahit of faith, implanted in 
the heart," or "a spiritual bias of the mind, which may be 
called a seed or principle of faith.'' Ibid. 37, 38* This 
opinion also is founded upon the theory of election and final 
perseverance, and so may be also despatched without further 
consideration. 

Fourthly. That the right of infants to baptism is founded 
upon the fact that one of the parents really, or at least 
nominally, is believing. "Our service on infant baptism is 
drawn up on the hypothesis that the infant is the child of at 
least one (really, or at any rate nominally) believing parent." 
Ibid. 32. The right of infants to baptism is not founded 
upon social relations, but upon the vicarious death of Christ, 
and as all children sustain the same relation to the death 
of Christ, all therefore are invested with equal right to bap- 
tism : to admit it in one case, is to admit it in all : to deny it 
in one case, is to deny it in all : to deny it in one case is to 
destroy altogether their only hope of salvation. Thus, all 
children indiscriminately are entitled to baptism, in their 
own right, founded upon the vicarious death of Christ — in- 
<(iependently of any relation to their parents — a right which 



216 INFANT BAPTISM. 



baptism recognises as already existing. The gracious rightia 
of children are not founded upon mere conjectures or hy- 
potheses of any kind, but upon the essential, substantial, and 
immutable facts and principles of the Grodhead " manifest in 
the flesh/' 

Fifthly. Nor does the right of infants to baptism depend 
upon "vicarious pledges'' made by parents at the time of 
baptism. "It must ever be recollected that baptism is a 
rite in which a co\'enant-engagement is entered into between 
Grod and man; in which, therefore, the engagement on God's 
part is to be met by a corresponding engagement on the part 
of man ; and where the baptized person is too young to make 
this promise in his own person, it is to be made by others 
for him; and baptism is administered on this vicarious 
pledge," &c. Ibid. 415. The vicarious atonement, in every 
case, a«d not a vicarious faith, is the only ground of infant 
baptism. 

Sixthly. Nor does the right of infants to baptism depend 
upon responsibility, any more than their right to salvation 
does ; for, in the nature of things in their case, responsibility 
cannot be made the ground of baptism any more than it can 
be made the ground of salvation. 

Seventhly. Nor does their right to baptism depend upon 
volition, since, in the nature of things in their case, volition 
can no more be made the ground of baptism than it can be 
made the ground of salvation. 

Eighthly. Nor does their right to baptism depend upon 
consciousness, since, in the nature of things in their case, con- 
sciousness can no more be made the ground of baptism, than 
it can be made the ground of salvation. 

Ninthly. Nor does their right to baptism depend upon 
repentance and faith, since, in the nature of things in their 
case, repentance and faith can no more be made the ground 
of baptism than they can be made the ground of salvation. 



THE GROUND OF INFANT BAPTISM. 217 



There is one more view, which we believe is the only view 
founded upon evangelical truth, and which we proceed to 
state and defend. 

The right of infants — all infants indiscriminately — is 
founded upon the vicarious death of Christ. 

As all infants, in consequence of their association with 
Christ as their federal representative, have an unconditional 
right to all the blessings of his atonement, nothing is more 
just and rational than that this right should be formally 
acknowledged as soon as the plan of redemption began to 
be formally developed. As the plan of salvation referred as 
much to them as to the rest of the human race, some men- 
tion of them must be made in the arrangement of the system 
of salvation — and the church is composed of all who are 
conditionally or unconditionally the subjects of salvation. 
Hence, in view of the ground of salvation, and the character 
of those entitled to association with the church, we may 
expect to find the defence of the rights, and the declaration 
of the interests of infants, in the very first dispensation of 
mercy that shall be proposed, and consequently a continua- 
tion of the same rights and interests associated with all suc- 
ceeding dispensations of salvation to the end of time. I go 
back to the first regularly constituted church in the world, 
and its constitution embraces children. The covenant made 
with this church is the everlasting covenant of grace, founded 
upon the atonement of Christ, and is thus expressed by Grod 
himself: "And I will establish my covenant between me 
and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for 
an everlasting covenant; to be a God unto thee, and to thy 
seed after thee."^ This was the form of the everlasting 
covenant made with Abraham, embraced again in the Jew- 
ish covenant, founded in both these instances upon the atone- 



3 Gon. xvii. 7. 
19 



218 INFANT BAPTISM. 



ment of Christ, and is essentially the same with the Chris- 
tian covenant. Hence, as God's covenant with the church 
changes not, Peter, on the day of Pentecost, opened the 
Christian dispensation with express reference to this cove- 
nant in its spiritual bearing on the case of the Jews. ^'Re- 
pent, and he baptized," says he, ^^in the name of Jesus 
Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the 
gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you and 
your children.'^ * What promise, but the one we have just 
quoted from the mouth of God, unalterable in its character 
throughout all generations? This view is supported by the 
Apostle Paul. ^^And he (Abraham) received the sign of 
circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith which he 
had yet being circumcised : that he ffivjht he the father of all 
them that believe^ though they be not circumcised, that 
righteousness might he imputed unto them^T ^ That is, 
Abraham, through faith, received all the blessings of the 
everlasting covenant made with him, of which circumcision 
was the sign and seal, and his children, being embraced in 
the same covenant, received the same sign and seal. So 
Christian believers receive the same blessings of the same 
covenant, through the same faith, of which, under the Chris- 
tian dispensation, baptism is the sign, and therefore their 
children, embraced in the same covenant, are entitled to the 
same sign. Were you and your children under the Abra- 
hamic, or Jewish dispensation, would not your children 
receive the initiatory seal by which they would be entitled to 
all the external and spiritual blessings of the Jewish Chui-ch ? 
Now as every dispensation of the everlasting covenant is 
founded upon the atonement of Christ, though the dispensa- 
tion, with its accompanying and corresponding external sign 
or seal, be changed, the everlasting covenant still remains in 

4 Acts ii. 38, 39. ^ Rom. iv. 11. 



THE GROUND OF INFANT BAPTISM. 219 



full force. Therefore, the same right to salvation belongs to 
children under all dispensations — only the outward form of 
recognising this right may be changed according to the 
character of the dispensation; and as the external sign or 
seal must be either circumcision or baptism; and as circum- 
cision is abolished, because the dispensation to which it was 
adapted is consummated; and as baptism remains the only 
proper sign of initiation into the church under the Christian 
dispensation, therefore the rights of infants to the blessings 
of the everlasting covenant cannot be formally and properly 
recognised under the Christian dispensation in any other way 
than by haptism : the covenant remains the same ; the rights 
of children remain the same; only the rights of children 
under different dispensations are recognised by a different 
sign or seal. Under the Christian dispensation, therefore, 
children are entitled to haptism — and so shall be to the end 
of the world. 

So long as the same reason or ground of right continues, 
the same right remains in full force as at first. Thus, the 
right of children to church membership remains still in force, 
since the ground of this right remains the same, namely, the 
atonement of Christ. Therefore, God himself cannot alter 
this right, or revoke his own institution, without changing 
the ground which he himself has laid down as the founda- 
tion of his church. God himself cannot deny children a 
right to church membership, without changing essentially the 
whole plan of redemption. The right of infants to church 
membership remains the same in all ages of the world, since 
the reason or ground on which God originally connected 
them with the church remains the same in all ages. Firmly 
and eternally is the right of infants to church membership 
established. This right God has confirmed ^^by two im- 
mutable things in which it is impossible for God to lie.'' 
The ground of infant circumcision was sacrificial, and hence 



220 INFANT BAPTISM. 



Christ declares, "I came not to destroy, but to fulfil ;'' and 
hence, in confirming infant circumcision, he confirmed infant 
baptism. An attempt to change the standing and immuta- 
ble law of Grod transcends the bold enterprise of the fabled 
giants against heaven, which was only a feint to alarm the 
gods, but this is a blow struck at the throne of Jehovah, to 
divest him of supreme legislative power and authority, and 
assumes more than Grod himself can command without making 
a fundamental change in his gracious government. Let the 
Baptists consider that they undertake to do what Grod him- 
self has not done, and cannot do without changing the 
foundation of human redemption. Let them consider, that 
by changing the reason or ground of the right of infants to 
church membership, they remove the atonement, which Grod 
himself, in infinite mercy and wisdom, laid down for their 
salvation, and that thus they leave no ground remaining on 
which childi-en can be saved. They must change the reason, 
before they can change the right : they cannot destroy the 
reason without destroying all the spiritual hopes of children : 
and therefore, in denying children the right to church mem- 
bership, they are in principle removing the only ground on 
which they can be saved. It is not in the power of man, 
however, to withhold from infants admission into heaven, 
though they are frequently denied it into the church on 
earth. In other words: the simple fact that a right was 
acknowledged in the early ages of the church, is not a 
sufficient reason that it should be acknowledged through 
every succeeding age of the church, unless the ground on 
which it was founded be clearly proved to have been con- 
stituted by Grod as oi perpetual force. The ground on which 
children were received into the church under the dispensa- 
tions that preceded the Christian dispensation, was the 
atonement of Christ, to he made in due time. Therefore, 
since the atonement has been made^ children should be 



THE GROUND OF INFANT BAPTISM- 221 



received into the church under the Christian dispensation 
by baptism. Had no atonement been provided, neither 
infants nor adults could have been received into the church, 
for then no church could have been founded; but since the 
atonement has been made, all children, in all time, have an 
equal, unconditional, and indisputable title to church mem- 
bership, which, under the Christian dispensation, is set forth 
and formally sealed by baptism. Observe, the covenant of 
salvation- made with man was to remain in full force in all 
ages of time. The Jews were the first to have their children 
formally recognised as the proper subjects both of salvation 
and the '^seal of righteousness" in Christ. Is the covenant 
of Christ, with the reason of an external ratifying seal, set 
aside in its application to children under the Christian dis- 
pensation? Certainly not, since the covenant, and the 
reason of an external seal, remain the same in all ages. All 
therefore who entertain objections to infant baptism, express 
equal contempt for circumcision, and oppose Grod himself, 
and the reason on which he transacts the affairs of his 
gracious government, under all the dispensations of his grace. 
Let the Baptists settle this grave question with Supreme 
"Wisdom; for the reason of things, in the case of infant cir- 
cumcision and infant baptism, is the common ground on 
which both are founded.' Baptism, as in the ease of cir- 
cumcision, was added as a seal after the covenant of grace 
was made with man, not to give efficacy to the covenant, 
or to strengthen its validity, but as confirmatory of it. 
Thus, children are not baptized in order that they may be 
brought into covenant with Grod, for they are already lecog- 
nised by God as his children, and embraced in his covenant, 
by virtue of the atonement, and the promise of Christ, ^'Of 
such is the kingdom of heaven." And hence they are 
solemnly and formally recognised by baptism as embraced 
in the covenant. As in the case of the adult believer, who 

19* 



222 INFANT BAPTISM. 



has not been baptized in infancy, baptism is added after bis 
faith, not to give any additional efficacy and validity to the 
covenant of grace, but as confirmatory; so in the case of 
infants, who have been constituted unconditional partakers 
of the blessings of the divine covenant, baptism is added as 
the formal confirmation of their title. It is vain to dwell 
upon the element of water, and the mere external observance, 
without special and exclusive regard be devoutly and reve- 
rently had to the gracious design of baptism, since it is the 
importance of the thing signified that gives value to the sign 
and the seal. And as the covenant of grace is immutable, the 
design of baptism, in the case of infants, as a sign, is to show 
that they have been unconditionally made partakers of the 
thing thereby signified. Dying in infancy, they receive ike 
thing signified, without hearing the word, without being 
taught, and without faith. Why then exclude them from the 
sign? If there was good reason in the Divine mind why 
the covenant of grace, under the Jewish dispensation, should 
be confirmed by an external seal in the case of children, the 
same reason continues in force under the Christian dispensa- 
tion; and hence, it as effectually secures to children the 
right to baptism, under the Christian dispensation, as it 
secured to children the right to circumcision, under the 
Jewish dispensation; and consequently, children have as 
good a right to baptism under the Christian dispensation, 
as children had to circumcision under the Jewish dispensa- 
tion. The difference in the mode of acknowledging the 
right specified cannot affect either the covenant or the 
reason. 

Infants, dying in infancy, are saved by free grace^ and 
therefore they may be baptized hj free grace. Free grace 
gives to them the title in both instances — ^invests them with 
equal title to the si^n and the substance. Infants, though 
in a passive state, may be capable of inheriting an estate ; 



THE GROUND OF INFANT BAPTISM. 223 



much more are they entitled by free grace, dying in infancy, 
to heirship with Christ. They are unconditionally infant 
hdrs of glory, ^^ heirs of Grod, and joint-heirs with Christ'' 
— and that too, blessed be Grod ! without faith, and without 
fellow-suffering with Christ. As, under the Jewish dispen- 
sation, circumcision was the outward seal of " the righteous- 
ness of faith," and was applied to children before they were 
capable of exercising faith ; so, under the Christian dispensa- 
tion, as baptism is the outward seal of " the righteousness 
of faith," baptism may be administered to children before 
they are capable of exercising faith, since they have 
righteousness without faith. To say that circumcision was 
not applied to any as a " seal of righteousness," but to those 
who were capable of exercising faith, is to deny the truth of 
the sacred record, for it was applied to children as the seal 
of the "everlasting covenant." In like manner, baptism 
may be applied to children under the Christian dispensation, 
since in their case the atonement of Christ, and not faith, is 
indispensable to "righteousness." And, therefore, all de- 
ductions unfavorable to infant baptism, drawn from pre- 
mises embracing repentance and faith, are wholly irrelevant 
to the case of infant baptism. The premises from which are 
deduced the propriety and validity of infant baptism are con- 
tained in the death of Christ, which redeems all infants from 
original guilt, and therefore their right to baptism is at once 
established. Likewise, all objections to infant baptism, found- 
ed upon the unconsciousness of infants, are illogical, since, as 
above, their right to baptism is founded upon the death of 
Christ, independently of their unconsciousness. The pro- 
mises of the gospel supply the obligations to repentance and 
faith. The ground of salvation is the ground on which in- 
fants can sustain covenant relations. Consciousness, on the' 
part of infants, is superseded by the anterior ground merci- 
fully provided in the death of Christ. The infant dying 



224 INFANT BAPTISM. 



in infancy, sustains the same relations to the covenant 
of grace unconditionally, which the believer sustains con- 
ditionally. Thus, the infant, upon the ground of previous 
relation to Christ, should be formally recognised as an heir 
of glory, and a member of Christ's church on earth, by ap- 
plying the seal of the covenant of grace, confirming and 
sealing unto him all the blessings of the everlasting cove- 
nant and advantages of connection with the Christian church, 
as he. may be able to receive them, and imposing upon him 
the duty to discharge all the obligations of his consecration 
as they may rise in his subsequent life. 

The mixed nature of baptism is founded upon the same 
ground. Baptism is partly positive and partly moral. Now 
infants unconditionally possess the primary qualification 
which the design of baptism requires ; this moral qualifica- 
tion is obtained for them by the atonement of Christ, with- 
out faith, and for adults by faith : and hence baptism can 
be no more withheld from infants than from adult believers. 
In other words, the only barrier to baptism is moral un- 
fitness ; but in the case of infants this barrier is removed by 
the atonement of Christ, and therefore they are entitled to 
baptism. 

One more remark. The moral qualification of infants to 
receive baptism is not hereditary, but by grace. It is upon 
this ground, and not that of natural relation to the parent, 
that all infants, without exception, whether of unbelieving or 
believing parents, have the same right to baptism. More than 
this : the ties of grace in Christ, and not the ties of regenerat- 
ing grace in ihe parent, furnish the ground of infant baptism. 
The children cf believers are not entitled to baptism ^^ for 
their fathers* sake" — ^for upon this ground, it must be ad- 
mitted, none but the children of believers would be entitled 
to baptism — but they are entitled to baptism upon the 
ground of Christ's atonement, and hence no discrimination 



INFANTS INCLUDED IN ALL COVENANTS. 225 



is to be made upon the ground of parental relation. All 
infants indiscriminately, through the rich, free, and en- 
larged promises of the gospel, are invested with the same 
unconditional title to baptism. No age or class is specified, 
that none may be excluded : all are included. 

Here we might confidently rest the validity and obligation 
of infant baptism, but we proceed to other arguments, all 
of which are founded upon the great principles of the atone- 
ment of Christ, and drawn from the Scriptures. 



CHAPTER II. 



IN ALL THE COVENANTS GOD MADE WITH MAN, IN- 
FANTS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED. 

In the Adamic covenant, in Paradise, " in the beginning'^ 
of the world, the holy posterity of our first parents would 
have been entitled to all the blessings of the covenant of 
worhs, had Eden continued in its original perfection to the 
present time. Under the Ahrahamic covenant, which was 
the formal development of the covenant of grace, substituted 
in the place of the Adamic covenant, children were included, 
as we have seen in the preceding chapter. So under the 
Mosaic covenant : ^' Ye stand this day all of you before the 
Lord your God ; your captains of your tribes, your elders, 
and your officers, with all the men of Israel, your little 
ONES, your wives, and thy stranger, that is in thy camp, 
from the hewer of thy wood, unto the drawer of thy water : 
that thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy 
God, and into his oath, which the Lord thy God maketh 
with thee this day.^^ * And shall infants be excluded from 

1 Deut. xxix. 10-12. 



226 _ INFANT BAr'fTSM. 



a formal recognition of their rights under the gospel dispen- 
. sation of the great covenant of grace ? — a dispensation which 
surpasses all others in the extent of its privileges, the range 
of its blessings, and the glory of its promises. Does the 
Christian dispensation contain nothing of a formal, public 
character for infants ? Is this consistent with the character 
of the ^^ fulness of times ?'' Strange, that while Grod formally- 
embraced infants in every covenant previously made with 
man, he should exclude them under the Christian dispensa- 
tion, which is the consummation and confirmation of all 
other dispensations under which children were received into 
the church ! Strange, that while the ground on which every 
other evangelical dispensation was founded, and on which 
infants were formally recognised as the subjects of salvation, 
is the foundation of the Christian dispensation also, infants 
should be excluded from the Christian church ! If it was 
only by the atonement of Christ, " finished" on the cross, 
that the seal of circumcision, and the hopes of infants, under 
all previous dispensations, were confirmed and established 
for ever, surely under the Christian dispensation, above every 
other dispensation, infants should be formally taken into 
covenant with Grod. If a formal recognition of the spiritual 
rights of infants — if a solemn consecration of infants to God 
— be non-essential under the Christian dispensation, why did 
not Supreme Wisdom dispense with such recognition and 
consecration under all previous dispensations ? There is no 
more reason for omission in one case than in another : indeed, 
the same reason for their recognition and consecration is 
elemental in every dispensation; and, therefore, the obliga- 
tion of the church thus to recognise and consecrate them 
to Grod, is elemental in the Christian dispensation. Such is 
the strong foundation of infant baptism under the Christian 
dispensation. 



THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 227 



CHAPTER III. 

THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH THE CONTINUATION OF THE 
OLD TESTAMENT CHURCH. 

We shall consider the branch of the argument, at the 
head of this chapter, under the following divisions : — 

1. The church, in all ages, is under the same great cove- 
nant of grace, though it may be under different dispensations. 

2. Hence the seal of every dispensation is a seal of the 
general covenant of grace. 

3. Therefore, baptism, the seal of the covenant under the 
Christian dispensation, is substituted for circumcision, the 
seal of the covenant under the Jewish dispensation. 

4. Hence, infants ought to be baptized. These proposi- 
tions shall follow in order. 

1. The church, in all ages, is under the same covenant 
of grace, though it may be under different dispensations. 

(1.) The church of God dates its origin, properly and 
formally, at the call of Abraham, though before this time 
there was what might be called the patriarchal dispensation, 
during which " men began to call upon the name of the 
Lord." 

That the covenant under the Christian dispensation and 
the Abrahamic covenant is the same, is evident from the 
following scriptures: ^'And thv? scripture foreseeing that 
Grod would justify the heathen through faith, preached he- 
fore the gospel unto Abraham, saying, in thee shali. all 

THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH BE BLESSED. So then they 



228 INFANT BAPTISM. 



which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham."* 
That is, God foreseing that the G-entiles would need salva- 
tion by grace, and intending to justify the heathen by faith, 
makes the covenant of grace with Abraham in a formal man- 
ner, in fulfilment of the promise made to Adam in Eden, 
and to be confirmed by Christ upon the cross. This com- 
prehensive view of the covenant of grace is gradually unfold- 
ed in succeeding ages. The "everlasting covenant," esta- 
blished with Abraham, is first mentioned in Grenesis, 12th 
chapter, and confirmed by an external sign in the 17th 
chapter. This covenant is the fulfilment of the promise 
made with Adam, " the seed of the woman shall bruise the 
serpent's head," and is to continue through all ages of time. 
But the covenant made with Moses four hundred and 
thirty years later, was added to the old Abrahamic covenant, 
on account of the transgressions of the people, to show the 
nature of sin, to restrain from idolatry, and prepare the way 
for the reception of the Redeemer. Moses's law was " adjded 
because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom 
the promise was made." ^ But Christ being come, the law of 
Moses that was added, passes away, and the covenant of grace 
still continues. " And this I say, that the covenant, that was 
confirmed before of Grod, in Christ, the law which was four 
hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it 
should make the promise of none effect." ^ Now, from the 
giving of the law on Mount Sinai, to the time when God 
formally made the covenant of grace with Abraham, as it is 
stated in the 12th chapter of Genesis, is precisely four hun- 
dred and thirty years — the very time Paul specifies ; and as 
the adding of the Mosaic law did not annul the Abrahamic 
covenant, the abolition and remofal of the Mosaic cere- 
monial law by the death of Christ was indispensable to the 

1 Gal. iii. 8. ^ Gal. iu. 19. 3 Gal. iii. 17. 



THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 229 



establishment of the covefiant of grace made with Abraham. 
Therefore, the Christian church, which is founded upon the 
death of Christ, is not only the continuatiorij but the com- 
pletion of the Old Testament church. " Abraham believed 
Grod, and it was counted unto him for righteousness, and he 
received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness 
of the faith which he had, being yet uncircumcised, that he 
might be the father of all them that believe, though they be 
not circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to 
them also. Therefore, it is of faith, that it might be of 
grace : to the end the promises may be sure to all the seed, 
and not to that only which is of the law, but to that also 
which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all. 
As it is writterij I have made thee a father of many na- 
tions."* Thus, as the general covenant included infants 
ander the Abrahamic dispensation, and still contines, it in- 
cludes infants under the Christian dispensation. 

Again, the apostle observes " that the Gentiles should be 
fellow-heirs and of the same body, and partahers of his pro- 
mises in Christ by the gospel.'' ^ And again : " He is our 
peace, who hath hrohen down the middle wall of partition 
between us, that he might make in himself of twain, one new 
man, and reconcile both unto Grod IN ONE body by the 
cross." ^ And again : " Therefore, ye are no more strangers 
and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of 
the household of God ; and are built upon the foundation of 
the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being 
THE CHIEF corner-stone." 5" Here the apostle declares 
that " the household," ^' the body," " the building," " the 
commonwealth," are not completed till the Christian church 
is constituted, and the foundation and corner-stone of the 
whole building laid down by Christ and his apostles. The 



4 Rom. iv. 5 Eph. iii. 6. « Eph. ii. 14, 16. ' Ibid. ii. 19, 20. 
20 . ^ 



230 INFANT BAPTISM. 



bid scaffolding is now taken down, and the church stands 
forth in its original design, finished, perfect, immutalDle, 
majestic. 

Therefore, when the believing Jews, in the days of Christ, 
entered into the Christian church, they changed not their 
church relations. They merely passed from the *' rudi- 
ments," as taught by the ceremonial law, to the possession 
of the doctrines of the gospel, as taught by Christ and his 
apostles. They embraced Christ, who by consummating and 
abolishing the ceremonial law, became the foundation of the 
Christian church. Therefore, AS they never left their 
CHURCH, their children cannot be excluded from the Chris- 
tian church. The ceremohial law was the "partition wall" 
between the Jewish and Christian dispensations, and conse- 
quently, the breaking down of this dividing wall secured 
the enlargement of the Jewish church, and its oneness with 
the Christian church. And as the whole is greater than a 
part, not only the Jews, but G-entiles, with their children, 
are entitled to the immunities and blessings of the ever- 
lasting covenant. By a masterly stroke of Divine power 
and wisdom, Christ in his death perpetuates the title of 
Jewish children to church membership, and introduces the 
children of Gentile parents also into the general church of 
Grod under the Christian dispensation. 

On this ground no change is made in the relations of the 
believing Jews. They continue as the true church, and still 
are called "the household," "the citizens," "the common- 
wealth" of Grod. They that believe continue " the branches," 
"the building," "the city," "the members," "the house- 
hold" of faith. The change is made in the condition of the 
Gentiles. These, as "far off," as "aliens" and "strangers," 
are "brought nigh," and made "fellow-citizens with the 
saints." The change in the condition of the Gentiles is 
absolute, universal, and essential. It was for this very pur- 



THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, OBS *. 231 



pose that the Jews were originally called and constituted as 
the church of God, that the Gentiles also might be gathered 
into the same great church, and "be builded together for a 
habitation of God by the Spirit/^ and consequently, that 
their children might be entitled to the same church relations. 
To continue the argument : — " Thou (the Chsistian church) 
hearest not the root, BUT THE ROOT thee/' ^ If the Jew- 
ish and Christian churches are not integral parts of the same 
great church, then there is no force in the figure used in the 
text: the meaning is, the Jewish and Christian churches 
are as much integral parts of the same great church as the root 
and trunk are integral parts of the same tree. Again : " For 
if thou (the Gentile church) wert cut out of the olive tree, 
which is wild by nature, and wert grafifed contrary to nature 
into a good olive tree; how much more shall these (Jews) 
which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own 
OLIVE TREE.'' 3 Our Baptist brethren themselves admit 
that the Old Testament church is here represented, and that 
•the church of God, the tree, planted in the days of Abra- 
ham, though mutilated by a thousand storms, still lives, and 
the "natural branches" are yet to be graffed into its trunk 
again, and constitute its crowning glories. But children 
were the young natural branches of this tree under the Jew- 
ish dispensation; and when it was first planted, they were 
graffed into it with their parents, according to the positive 
command of God. Now until this command be positively 
and expressly repealed, they are entitled, in all ages of the 
Chi'istian church, to be graffed by baptism into the same 
tree. Indeed, so far from being invested with the right to 
deny them this privilege, it is our solemn duty to continue 
it unto them. The covenant is not changed, the outward 
seal only is changed, and the change of the seal effects no 

8 Rom. xi. 18. 9 Ibid. xi. 



232 INFANT BAPTISM. 



modification in the covenant. Hence, it is as just, as wise, 
as reasonable, as proper, as desirable, that children be now 
associated with the church by baptism, as it was that they 
should be associated with the church formerly by circum- 
cision. The perpetuity of the covenant secures the identity 
of the church under every dispensation, and consequently, 
it secures also the continuation of the religious privileges of 
children through all time. You ask for positive warrant in 
the New Testament for the church membership of children — 
and I direct your attention to the identity of the church, 
under all dispensations, and under both Testaments, and to 
the positive enactment made by Jehovah two thousand years 
before the New Testament was written, by which children 
were explicitly and formally associated with the church, and 
which, never having been explicitly and positively revoked, 
remains as eflfectually in force, under the New Testament 
dispensation, as it was under the Old, when the church of 
God was first organized. Without repeal, there can be no 
exclusion — and there can be no repeal under the dispensa- 
tions of free grace, until the ground of infant salvation, the 
atonement of Christ, be changed; and consequently, as "the 
word of the Lord standeth for ever," the religious privileges 
of infants must continue for ever. With this immutable 
and eternal foundation of infant baptism before us, and the 
consequent continuation of religious privileges to children 
from the beginning to the end of the world, the Baptists, so 
far from having any right to call upon us for positive and 
explicit enactment in the New Testament respecting the right 
of infants to baptism, are themselves called upon to produce 
a positive repeal of their original right to church mem- 
bership. The silence of the New Testament, if it were wholly 
silent on the subject, would be a positive confirmation of the 
rights of children as they were specified in the covenant of 
grace at the beginning. 



THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, ETC. 233 

The Apostle Paul, in the tenth chapter to the Romans, 
after having removed, in the preceding chapters, every ob- 
jection brought by the Jews against the gospel in preference 
to their law, now sets aside the further evasion that they 
had not had preachers of the doctrine of salvation by faith, 
by showing that the gospel had been preached to them under 
the Old Testament dispensation. He introduces the Jew 
as inquiring, "How shall they call on him in whom they 
have not believed ? and how shall they believe in him of 
whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear with- 
out a preacher^? and how shall they preach except they be 
sent V But Paul replies, " Have they not heard ? Yes, 
verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words 
to the end of the world. But to Israel he saith, all day 
long I have stretched forth my hands to a disobedient and 
gainsaying people." Here the apostle shows that the gospel 
is not only the doctrine of every dispensation, but the com- 
mon property of the world, and that the Jews had a special 
interest in it. The fact that the Jews disbelieved that the 
prophecies were accomplished in Christ, and their con- 
sequent rejection of him, are no proofs that the gospel 
was not preached unto them under the Old Testament dis- 
pensation. 

Compare Amos ix. 11, 12, with Acts xv. 14-17. "In 
that day I will raise ujp the tabernacle of David that is 
fallen, and close up the breaches thereof: and I will raise 
up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old : that 
they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the 
heathen, which are called by my name, saith the Lord that 
doeth this.'^ The inspired interpretation of this prophecy 
of Amos is, " Simon hath declared how God at the first did 
visit the G-entiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 
And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 
After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle 
20* 



234 INFANT BAPTISM. 



of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the 
ruins thereof, and I will set it up, that the residue of men 
might seek after the Lord, who doeth all these things." 
Acts XV. 14-17. 

In the Epistle to the Romans, lest they should think he 
proclaimed a new doctrine, the apostle declared that Chris- 
tianity was but the fulfilment of prophecy, "which God had 
promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures." 
Rom. i. 2. Before Festus, Paul also pleads the antiquity of 
the gospel, and identifies it with " the things" foretold by 
Moses and the prophets: "I continue unto this day, witness- 
ing both to small and great, saying none other things than 
those which the prophets and Moses did say should come." 
Acts xxvi. 22. Many other scriptures might be quoted in 
proof of the identity of the church under every dispensa- 
tion of the covenant; such as "Abraham rejoiced to see 
Christ's day: he saw it, and was glad;"*° "the kingdom 
of God shall be taken from you (the Jews) and given to a 
nation bringing forth the fruits thereof ;""" he will come 
and destroy the husbandman, and give the vineyard unto 
others :" ^ but we suppose it unnecessary to multiply quo- 
tations any further to prove a point so clearly exhibited in 
every part of the sacred records, and to which we shall soon 
return in the course of this argument. 

(2.) The church is the same in all ages, since in its 
organization it possesses the same Divine Head; the same 
moral law; the same gospel; the same precious promises; 
the same spiritual design; the same atoning blood; the 
same Mediator; the same sanctifying Spirit; and the same 
doctrines — ^repentance, faith, justification, regeneration, 
sanctification, the witness of the Spirit,- the resurrection, the 
general judgment, and the sanctions of rewards and punish- 

w John viii. 66. " Matt. xxi. 43. »2 Mark xii. 9. 



THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, ETC. Z50 



ments. ^' Think not," says Christ, "that I am come to 
destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, 
but to fulfil" — TrXrjpcoffac — -plerosai — ^to complete, to make 
perfect. The church of Christ began with the first soul 
saved in the fallen world, and was designed to embrace all 
men, and extend through all time. It is founded upon the 
redemptive principle, and the redemptive principle is applica- 
ble to every case. The process in the development of this 
great principle, Christ perfected or consummated by his 
death, and hence the church, founded upon this principle, 
is the same in all ages of time and periods of eternity. The 
Jews themselves, under the Levitical and prophetical dis- 
pensation, were saved upon the redemptive principle, and 
their faith in Christ to come was established by his death, 
and after his death he commissioned his apostles to proclaim 
the applicability of this principle to "all nations." And so 
they did. "Is he the Grod of the Jews only? Is he not 
also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also;" 
for he is "no respecter of persons." And the time will 
come when the Jews shall be converted and restored — what 
then shall become of their children ? Jeremiah answers this 
question : " Their children also shall be as aforetime.^' Jer. 
XXX. 20. That is, shall be formally recognised by baptism 
as embraced in the everlasting covenant under the Christian 
dispensation, as they were formally recognised by circum- 
cision as embraced in the covenant under the Jewish dis- 
pensation. Indeed, as Christ, the great Antetype, fulfilled 
in himself all the preceding types, he must still preserve in 
himself substantially the gracious import of all the types, 
and so perpetuate the spiritual nature of the Old Testament 
church. Many things, it is true, under the old dispensation, 
were instituted for a limited period, and many were dimly 
revealed, but the elements of identity we have mentioned 
are essential to the plan of salvation, and immutable, and 



236 INFANT BAPTISM. 



hence secure to children the right to church membership to 
the end of time. True also, the privileges of the church 
under the Christian dispensation, are greatly enlarged, but 
the accession does not destroy the identity of the church, 
any more than an accession of rights and immunities destroys 
the identity of a city, corporation, or nation. While the 
death of Christ consummated, and therefore set aside, many 
divine appointments and ceremonial serviced of the Jewish 
church as of no more use, it at the same time laid the founda- 
tion for the enlargement of the privileges, without aiFecting 
the identity of the church. 

Thus, the original constitution of the church embraced 
children as church members, and as that constitution remains 
in all its essential parts the same in all time; and as 
certain ceremonial laws, in no respect interfering with the 
spiritual rights of children, have been annulled, therefore 
children under the same general covenant are entitled to 
church membership under the Christian dispensation. We 
pass now to the second consideration in the general argument. 

2. Hence, the seal of every dispensation of the covenant 
is a seal of the general covenant of grace. 

(1.) Such was the character of circumcision as a seal. 
The covenant made with Abraham and his posterity, the 
Jewish people, is partly spiritual, and partly temporal. It 
is not specified, that circumcision was the seal of that part 
of the covenant only which referred to temporal blessings, 
but of the whole covenant ; and consequently it referred also 
to the spiritual blessings embraced in the covenant. This 
twofold covenant has but one seal, viz. circumcision: cir- 
cumcision, therefore, was the seal of the covenant of grace, 
under the Jewish dispensation, and consequently identified 
the Jewish with the general Church of Grod. It is objected, 
that ^'circumcision was the external seal of tfee national 
covenant, but not of the spiritual, and hence cannot be a 



THE SEAL, ETC. 237 



seal of the covenant of grace/' Then, in the first place, the 
spiritual covenant with Abraham was without an external 
seal, which is contrary to the positive institution of Grod. 
Secondly. God made no difference between the children of 
Abraham, and the children of Ishmael. " And Abraham 
took Ishmael, his son, and all that were bom in his house, 
and all that were bought with money, every male, and' cir- 
cumcised the flesh of their foreskin, in the selfsame day, as 
Grod had said unto him" — and yet not one of these ever 
possessed any portion of Canaan, according to the provisions 
of the temporal covenant; and consequently, unless circum- 
cision had respect to spiritual blessings, it secured no privi- 
leges at all to these persons. And subsequently, the children 
of Esau received the seal of circumcision, by which they 
possessed a title to the spiritual blessings of the covenant, 
though they were excluded from a participation in the tem- 
poral blessings of the covenant: they never possessed the 
promised land. Now if the children of Ishmael and Esau, 
who were the posterity of Abraham, were excluded from the 
temporal blessings of the covenant, and yet were circumcised, 
certainly circumcision was more than a national seal. 

As they never obtained the temporal blessings, nor enjoyed 
the national privileges, to which circumcision entitled the 
descendants of Jacob, therefore, circumcision in their case, 
was a seal of the spiritual covenant of Grod with Abraham. 
In the case of the sons of Jacob, it was both national and 
spiritual; and as a national seal, therefore, Moses repeated it 
just before the Israelites entered the land of promise, to 
which their title was now confirmed. 

Thirdly. The sons of the stranger also received the seal of 
the covenant. The Gentiles could not derive any spiritual 
privileges till they had received the sign of the covenant. 
*^Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the 
Lord to serve him, every one that taheth hold of my cove- 



238 INFANT BAPTISM. 



nant, will I bring to my holy mountain/' &c.*' Reference 
evidently is here made to the obligations connected with the 
ancient initiatory sacrament of the Jewish church, the ex- 
ternal seal of the covenant of grace; for it is matter of ex- 
plicit enactment, that the Jews, and not the Gentiles, should 
derive temporal advantages, as well as spiritual, under the 
covenant made with Abraham. 

Fourthly. Circumcision was the seal of the covenant in 
which '^all the families of the earth were to be blessed.'' 
It is inconceivable how this promise can be understood in a 
temporal sense. It must have extended further than to the 
inhabitants and temporal blessings of Canaan. It is im- 
possible for the whole world to dwell in Canaan, as also 
impossible for Canaan to distribute temporal blessings 
throughout the world. Indeed the Jews became the agents 
of terrible and destructive calamities to surrounding nations. 
And hence this promise is to be understood in • a spiritual 
sense ; and consequently circumcision, the seal of the Jew- 
ish dispensation, was a seal of the general covenant of 
grace. 

Fifthly. "What profit is there of circumcision? Much 
every way ; chiefly that because unto them were committed 
the oracles of God.'' " That is, circumcision entitled both 
Jew and G-entile to all the advantages connected with the 
possession of the sacred oracles — the revelation of the Divine 
will made to Moses and the prophets respecting the covenant 
of grace and the Messiah; — and surely these inestimable 
spiritual advantages cannot be confounded with the earthly 
Canaan. 

Sixthly. That circumcision had special reference to the 
obedience of the law, the Apostle Paul expressly declares : 
"Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the law; but if 

13 Isa. Ivi. 6, 7. " Rom. iii. 1, 2. 



THE SEAL, ETC. 239 



thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made un- 
circumcision." *^ 

Seventhly. The apostle evidently refers to the spiritual 
design of circumcision, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, in 
which he concludes, that they were " without Christ, being 
aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, having no hope, 
and without Grod in the world," ^^ at the time, when they 
were of the ^^circumcision," and ^^ Gentiles in the flesh." 
But now "being made nigh by the blood of Christ," and cir- 
cumcision, the original seal of the righteousness of faith, 
being superseded by baptism, it is evident that circumcision 
under the Jewish dispensation has the same spiritual re- 
ference that baptism has under the Christian dispensation. 

Eighthly. The apostle confirms this view : " For he is not 
a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision 
which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one 
inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the 
spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men but 
of Grod." That is, circumcision as an outward mark, not 
only had a national meaning, but a spiritual sense, and as 
such was a seal of the covenant of grace under the Jewish 
dispensation. 

Ninthly. While the covenant of grace made with Abraham 
principally referred to spiritual blessings, and was so under- 
stood by the Fathers, it also embraced supplemental promises 
referring to the possession of the land of Canaan. In view 
of the scope of the covenant of grace, and the range of tem- 
poral blessings secured to the Jews under that covenant in 
addition to spiritual blessings, circumcision was constituted 
the ratifying seal of the covenant of grace, and the promise 
of the earthly Canaan conjointly, but principally referred to 
spiritual advantages. 

15 Rom. ii. 25. 



240 INFANT BAPTISM. 



Tenthly. The infant Jesus at eight days old, was solemnly 
recognised as a member of the Jewish Church — and yet he 
never possessed a foot of the promised land — ^he had not 
where to lay his head. His kingdom was not of this world. 

Eleventh. Circumcision signified a belief in the promises 
of the covenant of grace, and hence had reference to spiritual 
blessings. These promises referred to Christ, " the seed of 
Abraham," as yet to come, and hence the well-known and 
continued expectation of the Jews of their promised Messiah.*^ 

Twelfth. That circumcision was the seal of the general 
covenant of grace, is proved from the following circum- 
stances. 1. Circumcision was a seal binding on the part of 
the Jews, to believe in Christ to come, and on the part of 
God, to fulfil his promises respecting the Messiah, in his 
own time, by revealing him to the world. Hence, upon the 
advent of Christ, the covenant was confirmed and fulfilled, 
and circumcision, as a seal, was no longer necessary. 2. If 
after the coming and manifestation of Christ, circumcision 
had been continued, it would have implied a rejection of the 
covenant made with Adam, Abraham, and all mankind in 
Christ Jesus: ^'Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be 
circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify 
again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor 
to do the whole law. Christ is become of none effect unto 
you, whosoever of you' are justified by the law ; ye are fallen 
from grace." ^'^ That is, the covenant of grace being fulfilled 
on the coming of Christ, it was to continue in full force 
through all time, and as circumcision distinguished the Jews 
as the peculiar people of Grod, as well as sealed their title to 
the land of Canaan, on the manifestation of Christ, the con- 

16 And so the baptism of John imposed the obligation *' to believe in 
him who should come," and thus the dispensations of Moses and John, 
in this respect, were the same, though the outward seals were different. 

" Gal. V. 2-4. 



THE SEAL, ETC. 241 



firmed covenant of salvation was to be "made known to all 
nations, for the obedience of faith/' according to the promise 
made to Abraham — the peculiar rights of the Jews being 
now merged in the common participation of the universal 
provisions of salvation — which at once connects the Jews 
with the great covenant of mercy in Christ Jesus. Thus, 
circumcision was not only a national seal, but typical and 
spiritual in its chief importance; and hence under the Jew- 
ish dispensation, it was the seal of the covenant of grace. 

(2.) Such is the character of baptism. 

It remains now to show, that the church after the coming 
of Christ, to the end of the world, is under the same great 
covenant of grace, and that baptism is the external seal of it. 
Our work here is easy and brief. That the Christian dis- 
pensation is a dispensation of the grace of God, and that 
baptism is its outward seal, none will deny. Christ, in a 
few words, settles the whole matter. Consider the gospel 
commission — the scope of it: "the whole world.'' The 
duration of it : " lo ! I am with you always, even to the end 
of the world." And the external seal of it: ^^haptizing in 
the name J ' &c. Hence, baptism as the outward seal of the 
Christian dispensation, is the external seal of the same cove- 
nant of grace of which circumcision was the external seaL 
under the Jewish dispensation. 

In reply to the conclusion that the covenant of grace 
made with Abraham, is the same in all ages of time, the 
Baptists assume, that the repetitions of this covenant in the 
12th, 15th, and 17th chapters of G-enesis, are not repetitions, 
but so many distinct covenants. We answer ; 

First. Whatever distinctions existed, or additions were 
made, in the repetitions of the covenant, they all included 
spiritual blessings, and so the original seal of circumcision 
was applicable to all. 

Secondly. Such an assumption destroys the ground of 

21 



242 INFANT BAPTISM. 



justification by faith. The Sinai covenant was entered 
into 430 years after the covenant which was made with 
Abraham. The Apostle Paul, in his Epistles to the Ro- 
mans and Galatians, argues that the doctrine of the Bible, 
from the beginning, is justification by faith; and he selects, 
as a most promising and convincing example, the case of 
Abraham. He shows, that Abraham was justified, net on 
the footing of the law, but under the covenant made with 
him 430 years before the law was given. As the covenant 
is entirely distinct from the law, the argument is conclusive, 
that circumcision was the seal of the covenant; but upon the 
ground assumed by the Baptists, the law was co-evdl with 
the covenant, though Paul affirms that the law was given 
430 years after the covenant — and this covenant, he says, is 
the gospel covenant. 

Thirdly. The covenant recorded in the 17th chapter of 
Genesis, it is alleged, was a covenant of temporal blessings 
only ; and to tins covenant, and not to tJiat made with Abra- 
ham, in the 12th chapter, was the seal of circumcision 
annexed. Let us see. In the 12th chapter it is stated: 
" Now the Lord said to Abraham, get thee out of thy country, 
and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, into a 
land that I will show thee : and I will make of thee a great 
nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; 
and thou shalt be a blessing : and I will bless them that 
bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee 
shall all families of the earth be blessed.'' Now this cove- 
nant, which is supposed to be one of temporal blessings only, 
is the very covenant icTiich the Apostle Paul distinctly and 
frequently quotes in the New Testament, with a SPIRITUAL in- 
terpretation. Compare Gen. xvii. 4, 5, with Rom. iv. 16, 17 : 
" As for me, behold my covenant is with thee, and thou 
shalt he a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name 
be called any more Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; 



THE SEAL, ETC. 243 



f(yr a father of many nations have I made theeP Gen. xvii. 
4, 5. "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; 
to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed, not to 
that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of 
the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, (as it is 
written, I have made thee a father of many nations,") &c. 
Rom. iv. 16, 17. Jesus himself sustains this interpretation : 
''But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not 
read that which was spoken to you by Grod, saying, I am 
the G-od of Abraham, and the Grod of Isaac, and the Grod 
of Jacob? Grod is not the Grod of the dead, but of the 
living.'' Matt. xxii. 31, 32. And Paul confirms the po- 
sition: "These all died in the faith; not having received 
the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were per- 
suaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that 
they were strangers and pilgrims on earth. For they that 
say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. 
And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from 
whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to 
have returned : but now, as they desire a better country, 
that is, a heavenly : wherefore, Grod is not ashamed to be 
called their God; for he hath prepared for them a city." 
Heb. xi. 13-16. Here is reference made to a spiritual and 
eternal inheritance; and therefore, if the covenant made 
with Abraham in the 17th chapter did not embrace any 
thing more than a temporal inheritance, no promise of a 
spiritual and eternal inheritance was ever made at aU to 
Abraham, and the faith and hope of the patriarchs were 
vain. The ancient land of Canaan was not the promised 
country to which they looked, for "by faith Abraham 
sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, 
dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with 
him of the same promise : for he looked for a city which 
hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." Heb. 



244 INFANT BAPTISM. 



xi. 9, 10. And the apostle represents the patriarchs as 
having "tzo inheritance in it, (the land of Canaan,) no not so 
much as to set their foot on:'' and yet, ^Hhrough faith and 
patience they inherited the promises." This is the covenant 
which the Baptists have degraded to a covenant of temporal 
promises ! This is the covenant which Paul by inspiration 
declares to have been the covenant of grace, ^^ confirmed 
he/ore of God in Christ," and to which the seal of circum- 
cision was annexed. In a word, no new covenant of grace 
is made or referred to in the New Testament; the revelation 
of the great covenant of grace is made in the Old Testament, 
and the New Testament discloses the great facts of fulfilment 
and confirmation; and therefore, the church being under 
the same covenant in all ages, the seal of every dis- 
pensation of the covenant must be the seal of the general 
covenant. 

3. Therefore, baptism, the seal of the general covenant 
under the Christian dispensation, is substituted for circum- 
cision, the seal of the general covenant, under the Jewish 
dispensation. 

(1.) As circumcision was the seal of the covenant of 
grace under the Jewish dispensation, and as baptism was 
appointed by Christ as the seal of the same covenant, under 
the Christian dispensation, therefore, in the change of dis- 
pensations, circumcision being abolished, and baptism 
enjoined, baptism must be substituted for circumcision. 
" When the covenant of grace, in its ancient form, was done 
away in Christ, then the old sign and seal peculiar to that 
form was by consequence abolished. If then baptism be 
not the initiatory sign and seal of the same covenant, in its 
new and perfect form, as circumcision was of the old, this 
new covenant has no such initiatory rite or sacrament at all; 
since the Lord's supper is not initiatory, but, like the sacri- 



THE SEAL, ETC. 245 



fices of old, is of regular and habitual observance.'' *^ A 
seal is a sensible sign, that indicates a formal and more 
solemn consent of both parties to a thing agreed upon be- 
tween them, than could have been expressed in mere words 
— making the contract or promise more sure and binding, 
if possible, on both parties. Thus, if a seal have reference 
to a deed, it identifies and authenticates it as his who pro- 
fesses to be its author, and holds him to the full performance 
of all its requisitions ; if it refer to a promise, it binds the 
author to its fulfilment ; if it refer to commands, it carries 
along with it the authority of their author. The form of 
the seal may be changed by the authorized party, without 
in any respect changing the scope of the original deed, or 
the sacredness of the original promise, or the authority of 
the original commands, or the obligation and relation of the 
original parties. Thus, the form of the seal under the 
Christian dispensation, may be different from that under the 
Jewish dispensation, without in any respect materially af- 
fecting the relation or connection between the contracting 
parties. And thus it is that believers, who are baptized 
under the Christian dispensation, are called the children of 
Abraham, who is the primary example of faith to all be- 
lievers, though they be not circumcised. The seal of the 
covenant authoritatively refers to the righteousness of faith, 
and guarantees, on the part of Grod, the fulfilment of all his 
promises to the believer. In the case of children, however, 
righteousness is without faith, and consequently the seal of 
baptism in their case is the pledge of faithfulness on the 
part of G-od, and of obedience, at the proper time, on their 
part, as will be evident from a moment's consideration of the 
import of infant baptism as a seal. First, it is 9. formal and 
solemn seal, that the guilt of original sin is unconditionally 



18 Watson's Insts., vol. ii. 620, 

2?* 



246 INFANT BAPTISM. 



forgiven through the vicarious death of Christ, and that the 
infant is already in a state of justification. The pardon of 
the guilt of original sin, in the adult, is never formally set 
forth till he is baptized ; nor is the pardon of actual guilt 
in the adult ever formally set forth till he is baptized. 
Secondly, as a consequence of this unconditional forgiveness, 
it signifies that the infant, dying in infancy, shall be re- 
generated by the Holy Spirit, and so be saved. Thirdly, 
it is a seal, pledging conditionally to the infant, should he 
live, all the blessings of the covenant of grace, in time and 
eternity. The conditions of the covenant of grace are re- 
pentance, faith, and obedience, to be performed by the child 
should he ever arrive at responsible age. Should the child 
arrive at responsible age, and these conditions never be per- 
formed, then the covenant from the first is a nuUity. No 
one will deny, that he who is in a state of justification has 
a right to baptism ; and as every infant is in such a state, 
he has such a right, just as the adult in such a state has 
such a right. And just as in the case of the adult in a 
state of justification, should he fail to fulfil the conditions 
of the covenant, namely, faith and obedience " unto death," . 
or during the period of probation, the covenant from the 
first becomes a nullity; so in the case of the child baptized 
in infancy, should he live and fail to perform the conditions 
of the covenant, the covenant to him from the first becomes 
a nullity. In the case of both infant and adult, baptism, as 
a seal, imposes conditions subsequently to be performed; 
in both cases, the covenant, of which baptism is the formal 
seal, may become a nullity; and hence there is no more 
reason why one should be denied baptism than the other. 
In a word, baptism, as a seal, in the case of infants, signi- 
fies that, should they live, and unto the end of life perform 
all the conditions implied, they shall enjoy all the blessings 
of the covenant of grace, to be bestowed at the proper time, 



247 

STicli as regeneration, sanctification, grace unto all good 
works, deliverance in temptation, comfort in affliction, sup- 
port in trial, special providence, guardianship of angels, 
triumph in death, a glorious resurrection, acquittal at the 
judgment, glorification in heaven, and all the blessings of 
eternal life; and baptism, as a seal, in the case of the adult, 
in the nature of things, can signify nothing more nor less. 
Every infant is born under obligation, should he live to dis- 
charge all the conditions of the covenant of grace ; and so in 
view of the prospective performance of these conditions, 
baptism is a seal by which he is recognised as prospectively 
entitled to all the blessings of the covenant. So far there- 
fore from the adult having any right to deny baptism to 
infants, the adult himself, who has not been baptized, is 
under obligation to discharge all the conditions imposed in 
his own case, and receive the formal seal of baptism, which 
was omitted in his infancy — a neglect which he is now bound 
to adjust. Such, as a seal, is the import of baptism in in- 
fancy. "Although in children the seal goeth before, and 
righteousness of faith followeth after, as circumcision in 
Isaac, as Augustine showeth, and they as yet, when they are 
baptized, have no faith to make present use of the sacrament, 
yet, when they come to years of discretion, they are provoked 
and stirred up by the remembrance of the seal of faith given 
in baptism, which was indeed received but once; but the 
use and benefit thereof remaineth all the life long : so that 
this, notwithstanding the sacraments, are seals of faith, 
whether the seal goeth before or followeth after." Dr. An- 
drew Willet, 1600. And he adds: "Although Isaac with 
many others were first circumcised, and after justified, yet 
this is perpetual; they were no more justified by circum- 
cision than Abraham, who was justified before he was cir- 
cumcised, but by faith only." 

(2.) That baptism taKes the place of circumcision, is con- 



248 INFANT BAPTISM. 



clusively proved by the Apostle Paul: "And ye are com- 
plete in him, which is the head of all principality and 
power; in whom also ye are circumcised with the circum- 
cision made without hands, in putting off the body of the 
sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; hurled with 
him in baptism.'^ ^^ Here baptism is recognised as the ini- 
tiatory rite of the Christian dispensation, in the place of 
circumcision. The "circumcision of Christ/' in contradis- 
tinction to the circumcision of the old dispensation, must 
be baptism, unless we explain the phrase as referring to 
Christ's personal circumcision, and then the meaning of the 
apostle will be, " that we put off the body of the sins of the 
flesh," by Christ's own personal circumcision, and not by 
his death, which is false in theology, and absurd in reason. 
And lest some should adopt this dogma, the apostle adds, — 
'' buried with him in baptism," — hereby identifying the 
" circumcision of Christ" with baptism. 

Again: "As many of you as have been baptized into 
Christ, have put on Christ : and if ye be Christ's, then are 
ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." '»° 
"Baptized into Christ" — ^baptized into the name of Christ, 
means baptized into the acknowledgment of Christ, a pro- 
fession of Christ, into a right of participation of the bless- 
ings of Christ's grace, — ^into fellowship with Christ. The 
argument is conclusive. By circumcision the Jews became 
heirs of Abraham, according to the promise. By baptism, 
sacramentally, Christians become the seed of Abraham, and 
heirs according to the promise. The blessing is the same 
in both cases. Again: the Apostle Paul plainly and ex- 
pressly declares, that baptism is substituted in the place of 
circumcision. "Beware of concision" — or those who lay 
exorbitant stress on circumcision — "for we (who are bap- 

19 Col. ii. 10-12. 20 Gal. iii. 27-29. 



THE SEAL, ETC. "249 



tized) are the circumcisioiij who worship Grod in the Spirit." 
Phil. iii. 2, 3. This is positive, absolute, and unequivocal. 

(3.) At Jerusalem, when " certain men from Judea taught 
the G-entile brethren, except ye be circumcised, ye cannot 
be saved," ^ the council that met to deliberate on this ques- 
tion, said nothing about baptism as a sufficient substitute, 
and therefore their silence is strong proof that baptism was 
already well understood as divinely instituted for such a 
purpose. The believing Jewish zealots at Jerusalem, urged 
against the Apostle Paul : ^' thou teachest all the Jews which 
are among the Grentiles, that they ought not to circumcise 
their children." What then ? why, they ought to hajptize 
their children. 

(4.) The correspondence between baptism and circumcision 
as a sign and seal. 

Firstly. As a sign. '^Abraham received the sign of 
circumcision, — a seal of the righteousness of faith which he 
had, being yet uncircumcised." ''And the Lord thy Grod 
will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love 
the Lord thy Grod with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, 
that thou mayest live."^ Here circumcision is expressly 
declared to be a sign of that inward circumcision of the 
heart by which the soul lives and enjoys the blessings of 
the covenant of grace. And so baptism, under the Chris- 
tian dispensation, answers the same purpose. ''Except a 
man be born of water, and the spirit, he cannot enter into 
the kingdom of Grod." Here baptism shadows forth that 
inward spiritual washing which qualifies the soul for the 
enjoyment of the blessings of the covenant of grace. 

Secondly. As a seal. "The Lord had a delight in thy 
fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, 
even you above all people; circumcise, therefore, the fore- 

21 Acts XV. 1-5. ^ Deut. xxx. 6. 



250 INFANT BAPTISM. 



skin of your heart." ^3 go baptism, under the Christian 
dispensation : " As many of you as have been baptized into 
Christ have put on Christ;'' that is, by baptism ye have 
been outwardly sealed as Christians, and have professed 
Christ. Now as this two-fold correspondence between cir- 
cumcision and baptism proves that they are signs and seals 
of the same covenant of grace under the Jewish and Chris- 
tian dispensations, and as, on the abolition of the Jewish 
dispensation, baptism was divinely constituted the sign and 
seal of the covenant of grace under the Christian dispensa- 
tion, therefore we conclude that baptism was substituted in 
the place of circumcision. In a word, baptism answers all 
the purposes of an initiatory ordinance, that circumcision 
answered imder the Jewish dispensation. Circumcision was 
the initiatory sacrament of the church under the Abra- 
hamic and Mosaic dispensations: baptism is the initiatory 
sacrament of the church under the Christian dispensation. 
Circumcision was the outward sign of the inward seal, to 
all the covenanted mercies of the atonement of Christ, under 
the ancient dispensations: baptism is precisely the same 
under the Christian dispensation. Circumcision was typical 
of the " circumcision of the heart in the spirit, and not in the 
letter :" baptism is symbolical of the cleansing and renewing 
of the heart by the same Spirit. Circumcision was the 
badge of God's people, under the old dispensations : baptism 
is the same under the new dispensation. If then circum- 
cision — the initiatory ordinance of the Jewish church, the 
outward seal of the covenant, the symbol of spiritual cir- 
cumcision, the badge of God's people — was applied to chil- 
dren under the Abrahamic and Mosaic dispensations, why, 
in the case of baptism, which answers all these ends, and 
which is the only conceivable substitute for circumcision to 

23Deut. X. 15. 



THE SEAL, ETC. 251 



answer these ends, and which is the only proper initiatory 
sacrament of the Christian dispensation, restrict its applica- 
tion to the exclusion of children ? — and that, too, without 
any just and rational ground whatever? Baptism, under 
the Christian dispensation, which is only another form of 
the everlasting covenant of grace, holds the same place, and 
answers all the spiritual ends that circumcision, under pre- 
vious dispensations, held and accomplished. The fact that 
circumcision, under other dispensations, accomplished im- 
portant spiritual ends, is positive proof that it was the initi- 
atory rite of the great covenant of grace; and as baptism 
accomplishes the same spiritual ends under the Christian 
dispensation, the conclusion is inevitable, that the Christian 
church is but the continuation, as well as the completion of 
the great plan of salvation that had been in process of de- 
velopment from the fall of man till the death of Christ — 
and this, independently of all other considerations, is suffi- 
cient to establish the authority and validity of infant bap- 
tism. As a moral emblem, baptism means the same thing, 
under the Christian dispensation, that was included in cir- 
cumcision, under the ancient dispensations; and therefore it 
may be rightly and properly applied to the same subjects. 
Whatever in whole and in part, in a spiritual sense, was 
expressed by circumcision, is expressed by baptism both in 
adult believers and in the case of children. Circumcision 
was mainly spiritual in its design — and yet it was adminis- 
tered to children: so with baptism. Circumcision had 
reference to the blessings which are conveyed through the 
Messiah — and yet it was administered to children : so with 
baptism. Circumcision was a seal of visible membership 
in the church of Grod — and yet it was administered to 
children: so with baptism. Circumcision was an emblem 
of spiritual cleansing and purification — and yet it was ad- 
ministered to children: so with baptism. The unconscious- 



252 INFANT BAPTISM. 



ness of cliildren was not considered as a barrier to their re- 
ception of circumcision: so with baptism. Inability to 
believe and discharge the obligations set forth in circum- 
cision did not disqualify children from receiving circum- 
cision : so with baptism. Indeed, there is no difference in 
the spiritual meaning of circumcision and baptism. If there 
be any difference between them, it is to be traced to the 
difference there is between the Jewish and Christian dispen- 
sations in their external form. Baptism is not the seal of a 
temporal covenant, nor is it restricted to a specified time, 
nor is it confined to one sex: "there is neither Jew nor 
Greek, neither bond nor free, neither male nor female, but 
all one in Christ Jesus," under the Christian dispensation. 

Fifthly. The primitive fathers considered baptism received 
in the place of circumcision. Justin, A. D. 140, writes: 
"We dentile Christians also, who by him have access to 
Grod, have not received that circumcision which is according 
to the flesh, but that circumcision which is spiritual — we 
have received this circumcision in baptism." Again: "To 
us G-entiles baptism is given instead of giving us circum- 
cision." John Chrysostom, Horn. 40, in Gen. says, "There 
was pain and trouble in the practice of that Jewish circum- 
cision; but our circumcision, I mean the grace of baptism, 
gives cure without pain; and this for infants as well as 
men." Fidus, A. D. 250, delayed to confer baptism on in- 
fants till the eighth day, which implies that he regarded 
baptism as substituted for circumcision. By reference to 
Wall's History of Infant Baptism,®* the reader will find at 
length testimonies to this effect from Justin, Cyprian, Basile, 
Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, and others which our 
limits forbid us here to recite. 

Mr. Booth states the only plausible objection against the 

24 Vol i. chs. 6—15. 



THE SEAL, ETC. 253 



substitution of baptism for circumcision: '^If baptism suc- 
ceeded in the place of circumcision, how came it that both 
of them were in full force at the same time, that is, from 
the commencement of John's ministry to the death of 
Christ? For one thing to come in the room of another, 
and the latter to hold its place, is an odd kind of succession. 
Admitting the succession pretended, how came it that Paul 
circumcised Timothy after he had been baptized?" This 
objection is founded upon the supposed identity of John's, 
and the Christian dispensation; whereas John's dispensation 
was introductory and preparatory to the Christian dispensa- 
tion, and hence, as John had no authority to abolish Jewish 
rites, circumcision was practised along with baptism during 
John's dispensation 3 circumcision could not be abolished 
before the Jewish dispensation was consummated by the 
death of Christ : but when the blood of the everlasting cove- 
nant was shed, circumcision was abolished, and baptism 
alone became the sign and seal of the perfected covenant of 
grace. As to the circumcision of Timothy, it was merely a 
prudential regulation. His mother was a Jewess, but his 
father was a G-reek — and yet Timothy was laid under no 
obligation to keep the Mosaic law, for he had already sought 
and ohiSime^ justification hy faith in Christ. But when no 
prudential consideration of this nature rendered circumcision 
necessary, the apostle refused to circumcise, as in the case 
of Titus, who was a G-reek, and his parents Gentiles. ^^ 

But to be more particular. In the case of John's bap- 
tism, and that administered by Christ's disciples before his 
death, both were preparatory in their nature and design to 
becoming the sign and seal to the covenant of grace when it 
should be perfected and proposed to "all nations" for ac- 
ceptance, which did not take place till the "blood of the 

25 Gal. ii. 3—5. 
22 



254 INFANT BAPTISM. 



everlasting covenant" was shed. As this was the design of 
John's baptism, and as John was not invested with authority 
to abolish Jewish rites, or as the Jewish dispensation was 
not yet consummated, circumcision was yet in force, and 
continued to be in force, till Christ consummated the Jewish 
dispensation by his death, and formally instituted baptism 
as a sufficient sign and seal of the Christian dispensation. 
The mixed character of John's dispensation, that is, being 
both Jewish and preparatory, admitted the practice of both 
circumcision and baptism at the same time. Baptism was 
expressly added by the Father under John's dispensation; 
circumcision had not been abolished by the Saviour; and 
therefore the one, circumcision, afe the sign and seal of the 
Jewish dispensation not yet abolished, and the other, bap- 
tism, as preparatory to the dispensation not yei introduced, 
were properly, and by divine authority, ^^both in full force 
at the same time." Of course, when the Jewish dispensa- 
tion was consummated by the death of Christ, circumcision 
was dropped as no longer appropriate and in force, and bap- 
tism was retained as the appropriate, standing, and con- 
firmatory sign and seal of the perfected covenant of grace. 
In other words, John's dispensation being preparatory, 
baptism is added by the Father as a significative preparatory 
rite ; but the Jewish dispensation not being yet abolished, 
circumcision, its sign and seal, is still in force also; and 
both are administered at the same time : but both the Jew- 
ish and John's dispensation being consummated by the death 
of Christ, circumcision is abolished, and baptism is retained. 
Thus, baptism was not substituted in the place of circum- 
cision under John's dispensation, when both were in force 
at the same time, but under the Christian dispensation, 
when circumcision was abolished. Besides, John's baptism 
was not Christian baptism, and for this reason, therefore, 
Tihough circumcision was practised at the same time with 



INFANTS OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. 255 



John^s baptism, it cannot be said to have been in full force 
at the same time with Christian baptism. The Baptists, in 
the objection, fail to discriminate between John's and the 
Christian dispensation, and so omitting this important ele- 
ment, the Christian dispensation, in the premises, the con- 
clusion is essentially sophistical. If the Baptists indeed could 
prove that circumcision and baptism were in force at the same 
time under the Christian dispensation, even then it would 
indubitably follow that infants have a right to church mem- 
bership under the Christian dispensation ) and so too much 
would be involved and proved for the purposes of the Bap- 
tists. In either case, the Baptists are equally unsuccessful : 
if baptism does take the place of circumcision, infants have 
as good a right to baptism under the Christian dispensation 
as they had to circumcision under the Jewish; or if circum- 
cision was still in force under the Christian dispensation, 
infants had as good a right to it as they had under the Jew- 
ish : in either case, nothing is gained for the Baptists. To 
say, that circumcision was in force under the Christian dis- 
pensation, is to say, that infants had a right to church mem- 
bership under the Christian dispensation; or to say, that 
baptism was substituted for circumcision under the Christian 
dispensation, is to say, that infants had a right to church 
membership under the Christian dispensation: so that no- 
thing is gained by the Baptists by admitting the force of 
the objection. To say, that circumcision was in force under 
the Christian dispensation, is to admit the right of infants 
to church membership under the Christian dispensation : to 
deny that circumcision was in force under the Christian dis- 
pensation, is to give up the objection : in either case, the 
right of children to baptism is established. But the ob- 
jection is urged upon a specific case: "How came it that 
Paul circumcised Timothy, after he had been baptized?'^ 
The explanation is easy. In the first place, circumcision 



256 INFANT BAPTISM. 



was practised in tlie case of Timothy, not as a sign and seal 
of the old dispensation, or as imposing obligation to observe 
the old L5vitical rites in order to justification, but as a 
favorite national distinction which the Jews wished to ob- 
serve. The mother of Timothy was a Jewess, and his father 
was a Grreek, and Paul circumcised Timothy because ''the 
Jews which were in those quarters'^ entertained national preju- 
dices against his father, '•' for they knew he was a Greek." 
If a converted Jew in the present day were disposed to 
observe this rite in the case of his children, as a national 
distinction merely, while at the same time he admitted 
baptism as a sufficient sign and seal of the covenant under 
the Christian dispensation, the observance would be regarded 
as innocent, though unnecessary. Secondly, had Paul sup- 
posed that circumcision in the case of Timothy, or the 
Hebrew Christians, was observed upon any principle which 
aifected the essential doctrines of Christianity, he would 
have firmly and fearlessly opposed it. Thus, when certain 
'' false brethren'^ wished him to circumcise Titus, who was 
a Gentile, that they might use the apostle as authority in 
bringing other Grentile converts under bondage to the law 
of Moses, he resolutely refused to administer the rite, ob- 
serving, '' to whom we gave place by subjection, no not for 
an hour ; that the truth of the gospel might continue with 
you.'^ In the one case circumcision was admitted, as an 
infii-mity of prejudice ; in the other it was refused as involv- 
ing a rejection of the fundamental doctrine of justification 
by faith. If the Baptists could prove that the apostles 
practised circumcision as a sign and seal of the old covenant, 
even then the right of infants to church membership under 
the Christian dispensation would follow, and so nothing 
would be gained by the argument. But Paul positively 
declares that circumcision, practised as a seal of the old 
covenant, involves a total denial of Christ, and the new 



INFANTS OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. 257 



covenant } he also uniformly afiirms that circumcision passed 
away with the old dispensation of which it was the feeal ? 
hence he could not have administered the rite in the case of 
Timothy, nor admitted it in the case of the Hebrew Chris- 
tians, as a sign and seal of the new covenant under the 
Christian dispensation. Our fourth proposition follows : 

4. Hence, infants ought to be baptized. 

First. The church was not organized in the days of Christ, 
but under the old dispensation. The constitution under 
which any society or association is organized, determines who 
shall be members of it. The original constitution of the 
church recognised infants as members of it ; and hence, as 
the church remains the same in all ages, infants to the end 
of time are to be formally recognised as a portion of its 
members. It was not a new church into which Grentile be- 
lievers entered upon the opening of the Christian dispensa- 
tion, but the old church, in which children had always been 
recognised as members, and which, at the time of the enter- 
ing of the Gentiles, still received children. Had the church 
been organized in the days of Christ, and in/ants been 
omitted, then it might be conceded that they are not entitled 
to church membership : but as the constitution under which 
the church was organized has not been altered in this re- 
spect, infants, under the Christian dispensation, are entitled 
to church membership, and hence should be baptized. 

Secondly. Circumcision bore the same relation to the cove- 
nant of salvation, under the Jewish dispensation, that bap- 
tism does to the same covenant, under the Christian dis- 
pensation. By circumcision under the Jewish dispensation, 
children received the outward sign of the covenant, and 
were received into the Jewish church ; so by baptism under 
the Christian dispensation, they receive the outward sign of 
the same covenant, and are received into the Christian 
church. If children, at one time, though under a different 

22* 



258 INFANT BAPTISM. 



dispensation, have a right to the spiritual blessings of the 
icovenant, they have at all times, and under all dispensa- 
tions, the same right. Circumcision did not belong to the 
ceremonial law, but to the covenant; hence the abrogation 
of the Mosaic or ceremonial law, and the abolition of circum- 
cision, cannot disannul the original covenant, and hence do 
not invalidate the rights of infants to the blessings of the 
covenant. *^The law cannot disannul the covenant,'^ nor 
set aside the "promises.^'^^ And as circumcision belonged, 
not to the ceremonial law, but to the covenant under the 
law, as baptism belongs to the same covenant under the 
gospel, both circumcision and baptism being initiating sacra- 
ments of the covenant, though under different dispensations; 
it follows that the meaning and application of baptism are 
the same under the gospel as were contained in circumcision 
under the law— %nd hence infants cannot justly be excluded 
from baptism. The covenant has undergone no change by 
express precept, which formerly recognised the rights of 
infants to church membership; the moral character of the 
infant is the same since the fall of man ; the organization 
of the church has not been subjected to any modification 
with respect to infants since its origin in the time of Abra- 
ham ; and consequently infants are entitled to the formal 
recognition of the whole scope of their rights under the 
gospel. 

Thirdly. Baptism is substituted in the place of circum- 
cision. This has been proved. But children, under the 
Jewish dispensation, were circumcised. Therefore, children 
under the Christian dispensation, should be baptized. 

We now conclude the argument of this chapter. The 

CHURCH IN ALL AGES, IS UNDER THE SAME COVENANT OP 
GRACE, THOUGH IT MAY BE UNDER DIFFERENT DISPENSA- 

26 Gal. iii. 17-21. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT, ETC. 259 



TiONS. Hence, the seal of every dispensation is a 

SEAL OF the general COVENANT OF GRACE. THERE- 
fore, baptism, the seal of the covenant under the 
Christian dispensation, is substituted for circum- 
cision, THE SEAL OF THE COVENANT UNDER THE JEWISH 
DISPENSATION. HeNCE, INFANTS OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED, 
AS INFANTS ARE EMBRACED IN THE GENERAL COVENANT, 
AND WERE SEALED BY CIRCUMCISION, AS THE HEIRS OF 
SALVATION, UNDER THE AbRAHAMIO AND MOSAIC DIS- 
PENSATIONS. 



CHAPTER lY. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT IN HARMONY WITH THE DOCTRINE 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 

The New Testament abounds with scriptures which can- 
not be satisfactorily and fully explained but in harmony with 
the doctrine of infant baptism. 

1. I invite the reader's attention to the general com- 
mission of Christ to his apostles: "Gro ye therefore and 
teach all nations, baptizing them," &c.* How may we sup- 
pose the apostles, who were Jews, understood this ? How 
may we suppose all the Jews understood this ? How would 
missionaries, sent put from any of the paedobaptist denomina- 
tions, understand it ? Why, that they were authorized to 
include children, according to the usages, manners, and laws 
to which they had been accustomed. And how would Bap- 
tist missionaries understand it? Why, that children ought 
to be excepted ? Now from every sound view of the usages, 
manners, and laws of the Jews, the conclusion is irresisti- 

1 Matt, xxviii. 19. 



260 INFANT BAPTISM. 



ble, that tlie apostles, commissioned by Christ to ^^ baptize 
all nations/' understood that children were embraced in the 
scope of their commission, as we shall now see. For many 
centuries before this commission was given, it had been the 
custom of the Jews to baptize all their proselytes from other 
nations, both parents and children.^ " It is evident that the 
custom of the Jews before our Saviour's time (and, as they 
themselves affirm, from the beginning of their law) was to 
baptize as well as to circumcise any proselyte that came over 
to them from the nations. This does fully appear both 
from the books of the Jews themselves, and also of others 
that understood the Jewish customs and have written of 
them." In the words of Maimonides, the great interpreter 
of Jewish law : ^'By these three things did Israel enter into 
covenant, by circumcision, and baptism, and sacrifice. Cir- 
cumcision was in Egypt, as it is written, No uncircumcised 
person shall eat thereof, &c. Baptism was in the wilderness 
just before the giving of the law : as it is written. Sanctify 
them to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their clothes, 
i. e. their whole bodies. And 'sacrifice : as it is said, And 
he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered 
hurnt-offerings," &c.* 

Talmud, Tract, Repud. " Israel does not enter into cove- 
nant but by these three things, by circumcision, baptism, 
and peace-offering ; and the proselytes in like manner." ^ 

And again. Ad Tit. Cherithoth, cap. 2. "As you are, so 
shall the stranger he. As you are, that is, as was done to 
your fathers. And what was done to them ? Your fathers 
did not enter into covenant but by circumcision, and bap- 
tism, and sprinkling of blood. So neither do proselytes 
enter into covenant but by circumcision, baptism, and sprin- 
kling of blood." 3 

2 Lightfoot and Wootten. 

3 Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap. vol. i. 11, 12, 13. 



THE GREAT COMMISSION. 261 



Rdbhi Solomon in loco. "Our rabbies teach that our 
fathers entered into covenant by circumcision, and baptism, 
and sprinkling of blood." * 

"And Mr. Selden, De Synedr. lib. i. cap. 3, observes 
that that saying of St. Paul, 1 Cor. x. 1, 2, "All our 
fathers were baptized unto Moses, in the cloud, and in 
the sea," would have been difficult for those to whom St. 
Paul wrote to make any sense of, had it not been a thing 
well known at the time when the apostle wrote, that the 
Jews looked upon themselves as having entered into cove- 
nant by baptism ; and that St. Paul spoke as alluding to 
that. And Dr. Hammond concludes the same." * 

Maimonides observes: "And so in all ages, when an 
ethnic is willing to enter into covenant, and gather himself 
under the wings of the majesty of Grod, and take upon him 
the yoke of the law; he must be circumcised and baptized, 
and bring a sacrifice. As it is written, As you are, so shall 
the stranger he. How are you? By circumcision, bap- 
tism, and bringing of a sacrifice. So likewise the stranger 
through all generations ; by circumcision, and baptism, and 
bringing a sacrifice." 

" Besides, the infant children of proselytes, at the father's 
desire, were circumcised, and baptized, and admitted as 
proselytes. The child's inability to declare or promise for 
himself was not regarded as a bar against his reception into 
covenant; but the desire of the father to dedicate him to the 
true God, was considered available, and sufficient to justify 
his admission." ^ 

It was a custom of the Jews to baptize any child they 
found exposed in " the fields, woods, or highways by the 
heathen." 

Maimonides, Halach Shidim, c. 8. "An Israelite that 

* WaU's Hist. Inf. Bcap. vol. i. 11, 12, 13. 5 ibid. vol. i. 14. 



262 INFANT BAPTISM. 



takes a child, or finds a heathen infant, and baptizes him for 
a proselyte : behold he is a proselyte/' 

Hierosol. Javamoth, fol. 8. 4. "Behold, one finds an 
infant cast out, and baptizes him in the name of a servant. 
But if he baptize him in the name of a freeman ; do thou 
also circumcise him in the name of a freeman.'* ^ 

Dr. Lightfoot observes : " The baptizing of infants was a 
thing as well known in the church of the Jews, as ever it 
has been in the Christian church." And Selden and 
Wotton both testify, "that children, however youngs were 
made proselytes." 

The rabbles unanimously assert, that proselyte baptism 
had been the practice according to their law, from the time 
of Moses down to their own age. 

The Jews expressed no surprise at the doctrine of baptism 
preached by John, as if it were a novelty, but they were 
surprised that he should baptize, as he did not acknowledge 
himself to be the Christ, nor Elias, nor that Prophet who 
should come. The Jews expected that they would baptize 
on their arrival. " Why baptizest thou, if thou be none of 
tJiesef And if John did not baptize children, the Jews 
might have inquired also, and probably would have done so, 
by what authority do you make this important and extra- 
ordinary innovation upon our laws and usages ? Ainsworth, 
having shown at large the prevalence of the custom of prose- 
lyte baptism, adds at the conclusion, "Hereupon baptism 
was nothing strange to the Jews when John the Baptist 
began his ministry. They made question of his person that 
did it, but not of the thing itself" Thus, it is easy to see, 
that the comprehensive commission of Christ, " Gro, and teach 
all nations, and baptize them," &c., plainly implied that the 
apostles, who were Jews, understood that they were not to 

6 Wall's Inf. Bap. vol. i. 20. 



THE GREAT COMMISSION. 263 



depart from the old law and usage of the Jewish church on 
the subject of baptism. As the ancient custom of baptizing 
infants had undergone no change by explicit enactment, and 
no particular exception respecting it was made in the great 
commission of Christ to his apostles, it is clear, that when 
they came to the cases of infants, at any time, in their ad- 
ministration of baptism, they felt it their duty to baptize 
them also. Christ made no alteration in this matter in the 
church in which he and his apostles lived, and consequently 
none can now be made without some well attested authority 
from heaven. 

Suppose the word circumcise had been adopted by Christ 
instead of baptize, in the great commission, no doubt could 
have existed respecting the scope of the commission to the 
apostles : and infants, without any specification being made, 
would have been regarded as proper subjects of circumcision, 
according to the unrepealed laws and usages of the Jewish 
church. In like manner, according to the unrepealed usages 
of the Jewish church, the apostles must have felt bound to 
recognise infants as proper subjects of baptism. Had the 
word circumcise been adopted instead of baptize, the apostles 
could not have considered children excluded — unless excep- 
tion had been explicitly made. Consequently, the adoption 
of a rite, baptism, to which they had been always accus- 
tomed, and which they knew had been long and universally 
administered to proselytes, did not involve in their minds 
any exception of children. They were commanded now to 
" proselyte' ' — jia^TjTeucu, matheteuo — all nations. "They 
knew what initiatory ceremonies were performed in the case 
of proselytes, namely, circumcision, baptism,, and sacri- 
fice. But Jesus had abolished the old Jewish dispensation, 
and consequently its initiatory rite with it. He had also 
oflFered up himself as a sacrifice for sin once for all, and 
thus the "sacrifice" required was also set aside. But bap- 



264 INFANT BAPTISM. 



TISM was retained, and was positively instituted by Christ 
as the sole initiatory rite of the Christian church. In the 
first council of the Christian church, in the year 49, when 
the question of circumcision was discussed, the decision of 
these very apostles was, that circumcision should be dis- 
pensed with under the Christian dispensation. Baptism 
remaining, and being enjoined by our Saviour as the initia- 
tory sacrament of the Christian church, the apostles were 
bound, under the most solemn responsibilities, to administer 
it in the case of children, in accordance with the earliest 
institution of their laws, usages, and customs, especially 
when they knew that their commission enlarged, instead of 
diminisJied, the blessings and privileges of the everlasting 
covenant. As Gentiles, under the Jewish dispensation, were 
received into the church by circumcision, sacrifice, and 
baptism, and as children were so received with their parents, 
so under the Christian dispensation, as Christ has abolished 
circumcision and sacrifice, and retained baptism, the chil- 
dren of Gentile parents ought to be received into the Chris- 
tian church by baptism alone — ^and so the apostles must 
have understood it. Now, Christ might just as well have 
retained circumcision, and dropped baptism, had he seen 
proper to do so, and then none of the present day, or of any 
other age, without express prohibition, would have denied 
children the right to circumcision. But as Christ has re- 
tained baptism as sufficient without circumcision, certainly 
children are as much entitled to baptism now, without ex- 
press prohibition, as they were to circumcision before cir- 
cumcision was dropped or abolished by Christ. In a word, 
before the coming of Christ, Gentile children were entitled 
to the whole of the initiatory rite above; surely, then, after 
the coming of Christ, they are entitled to that part which is 
retained and enjoined, to answer the end of the whole of 
the original, complex, and burdensome rite. Christ ^Hook,'' 



THE GREAT COMMISSION. 265 



says Dr. Lightfoot, '^into his hands baptism such as he 
found it; adding only this, that he exalted it to a nobler 
purpose and a larger sense.'' And he observes, ^'The 
whole nation knew well enough that infants used to be bap- 
tized. There was no need of a precept for that which had 
ever by common use prevailed. It was therefore necessary, 
on the other side, that there should have been an express 
and plain order that infants and little children should not 
be baptized, if our Saviour had meant that they should not. 
For since it was ordinary, in all ages preceding, to have in- 
fants baptized, if Christ would have had that usage to be 
abolished, he would have expressly forbidden it. So that 
his and the Scriptures' silence in this matter does confirm 
and establish infant baptism for ever." 

The reason of things is obvious. In the original consti- 
tution of the plan of redemption, Grod designed that baptism 
should finally become the initiatory rite of that dispensation 
which should embrace ^^all nations." Before, however, this 
dispensation could be properly introduced, it was necessary 
that the Jewish dispensation should be instituted as pre- 
liminary. From the peculiarity of the Jewish dispensation, 
its initiatory rite embraced circumcision and sacrifice; and 
in case of proselytes from G-entile nations, baptism was 
added. And why added in the case of Grentiles ? Because, 
among other reasons, but principally this, when the Jewish 
dispensation should be set aside, or merged in the Christian 
dispensation, and that part of the initiatory rite which re- 
ferred especially to the Jews should be set aside also, the 
remaining part, which referred especially to the Grentiles, 
should still be retained. And so it was customary among 
the Jews to use bread and wine at the conclusion of the 
celebration of the Passover, which custom Jesus sanctioned 
and perpetuated at the last passover. ^ Thus the blessed 

7 Luke xxii. 19-20. 
23 



266 INFANT BAPTISM. 



Jesus sanctioned proselyte baptism, and solemnly appointed 
it as a standing sacrament till tlie consummation of the 
Christian dispensation — and the apostles must have under- 
stood it as still embracing children. It may be added, that 
this modification of the ancient initiatory rite of proselytes, 
is the more proper and wise, because it is less burdensome — 
universal in its application — and more expressive of the 
dispensation to which it is attached. This view is forcibly 
sustained by a reference to other parts of the great com- 
mission. "Gro ye therefore and teach!* — the word rendered 
teach is not dtddaxw, didaslwj but ixa^T^rtbui^ matlietPAio — 
"disciple, proselyte^ all nations" — the very work of the 
Jewish dispensation, and that which was designed to succeed 
the Jewish dispensation. "Teaching them to observe" — 
dtddffxio — didasko, is the word now employed. It would be 
palpable tautology to say, " Go teach all nations — teaching 
them," &c; but when the phraseology is changed, "Go, 
disciple, proselyte all nations — teaching them, imparting 
instruction to them, training them up in all the precepts 
and doctrines which I have commanded you," all is con- 
sistent, plain, and impressive. The full and satisfactory 
explanation of the great commission then will run as follows : 
Go ye into all the world, and proselyte all nations, initiating 
them by baptism into the Christian church, and teaching 
them, training them up in all the doctrines and precepts of 
the Christian dispensation. Retain and perpetuate unto the 
Gentiles that part of the original rite of initiation that espe- 
cially referred to them, and with which they are already 
familiar; and as children can be trained for the kingdom of 
God, embrace them in your commission as proper subjects 
of baptism, according to the ancient laws and usages of the 



^ The highest authority, classical and biblical, give //aS^jrtiicj this com- 
prehensive signification. 



THE GREAT COMMISSION. 267 



Jewish dispensation. Now wlien in addition to tlie know- 
ledge the apostles had of the ancient laws and usages of the 
Jewish church in the case of proselytes, it is considered 
that the apostles knew and taught that circumcision was 
superseded bj baptism as an initiating ordinance, no rational 
doubt can remain respecting the comprehensiveness of the 
evangelical commission. Granting that the apostles paid 
no regard to ancient laws and usages, even then, upon the 
ground of the suhstitutory character of baptism, they must 
have considered themselves as laid under obligation, and 
invested with authority, to administer baptism to infants 
under the gospel commission. But when the force of habit, 
that is, the force of long established laws and usages, is 
superadded to this consideration, it is morally certain that 
our conclusion respecting the scope of the apostles' views of 
the great commission is correct. 

The fact that the believing Jews regarded their children 
as proper subjects of circumcision only, and not of baptism, 
on the expression of faith by any Jewish parents, does not 
affect the question at all — this was the error of their own; 
for the gospel concluded all under sin, recognising neither 
Jew nor Greek as entitled to' special privileges, and hence 
embraces '^all the world'' in the range of its influence, and 
comprehends ^^ every creature" in the number of its objects. 
But '^little children,'' it is objected, ^^are incapable of in- 
struction, and therefore they are not included in the terms 
of the great commission." What, are they not to be taught 
the doctrines of the gospel ? Are they not to hear of salva- 
tion by Jesus Christ? Was not Timothy taught in the 
Scriptures from a child ? Was not the Jewish child, at the 
earliest age possible, taught the very first part of the ten 
commandments: "Honor thy father?" Did not the ad- 
monition of Solomon fall upon the ear of the child as soon 



268 INFANT BAPTISM. 



as instruction could be communicated : " Remember now thy 
Creator ?'' 

Paul, in bis Epistle to the Ephesians, exhorted the ^^ chil- 
dren to obey their parents/^ and the fathers that they should 
" bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.'' 

It is further objected, ^^that the Jews were not accustomed 
to receive proselytes till the destruction of the second temple, 
A.D. 70: ^^Upon unquestionable testimony, which we have 
adduced, proselytes were received into the Jewish church long 
before the coming of Christ. But granting that proselytes 
were not received by baptism till a. d. 70, then we have it 
admitted by the Baptists, that children were baptized seventy 
years after the coming of Christ. This was in the very 
midst of the apostles' days! And therefore it was by 
apostolic authority that the Jews baptized the cliildren of 
proselytes ? And it is unaccountable why the Jews should, 
and the Christians should not, baptize children. Epictetus, 
a heathen writer, who lived, according to Dr. Lardner, A. D. 
109, and according to Le Clerc, 104, and who was about 
sixty years old when he wrote the following quotation, and 
obtained his information about thirty years earlier, which 
brings him up to the apostolic age, says, '^ When we see any 
one wavering, we are wont to say. This is not a Jew, but acts 
one. But when he assumes the sentiments of one who hath 
been haptized and circumcised, then he both really is, and 
is called a Jew.'' Mr. Booth, a distinguished Baptist, ad- 
mits that "the children of proselytes were baptized along 
with their parents." 

Again, it is objected: "It is not commanded in the great 
commission to baptize infants, therefore they are not to be 
baptized." To which I briefly answer : it is not forbidden 
to baptize infants, therefore they are to be baptized, because 
the original law in their case is unrepealed. 

Secondly. Peter's first sermon. "Then Peter said unto 



THE GREAT COMMISSION. 269 



them, Repent and he "baptized every one of you, in the name 
of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall re- 
ceive the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you and to 
1/our children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as 
the Lord our Grod shall call.'' ^ This, we say, is a positive 
declaration and recognition of the right of infants to baptism 
under the Christian dispensation. ''The promise" — what 
promise ? The promise of redemption by Jesus Christ, a 
promise that runs through the Bible — made to Adam — ''the 
seed of the woman shall bruise»the serpent's head;" repeated 
to Abraham — "in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth 
be blessed;" affirmed by Christ — "I am of the seed of 
Abraham;" fulfilled by Christ — "it is finished;" proclaimed 
by Christ — " go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing 
them in the name, &c. — beginning at Jerusalem;" and 
preached by Peter on this occasion at Jerusalem — " for the 
promise is unto you, and to your children.^' Children then 
are here specifically included in the promise, and hence they 
can be no more denied baptism, than they can be excluded 
from the promise — can no more be denied baptism, than the 
converted Jews who embraced the promise could be denied 
baptism — are just as clearly recognised as entitled to bap- 
tism, because embraced in the promise, as the converted 
Jews were who embraced the promise and were baptized. 
To be embraced in the promise, is to be entitled to the seal 
of the promise, which is baptism: "children" are embraced 
in the promise, and therefore are entitled to baptism : "chil- 
dren" are specifically embraced in the promise — " children," 
therefore, are specificcdly entitled to baptism. This then is 
a positive, specific, scriptural recognition and declaration of 
the right of children to baptism. " The promise" — the 
everlasting covenant of salvation — of which circumcision 



9 Acts ii. 38, 39. 

23* 



270 INFANT BAPTISM. 



■was the seal under the Jewish dispensation, and infants 
received this seal under the Jewish dispensation. " The 
promise" — the everlasting covenant of salvation — but bap- 
tism is the seal of this covenant under the Christian dis- 
pensation, and therefore both parents and children should 
be baptized, for Peter declares that both parents and " chil- 
dren" are included in "the promise." The argument of the 
Baptists runs thus : '^ The promise is unto you, and there- 
fore you are to be baptized : the promise is also unto your 
children, but they are not to be baptized." This makes 
Peter contradict himself, annulling the very reason for the 
baptism of the children, which he had made the ground of 
the baptism of the parents. Indeed, the Baptists have in- 
verted the order of things, and in doing so, have excluded 
one party altogether from baptism. Antecedent to repentance 
and faith children have a right to baptism ; and subsequent 
to repentance and faith the adult has a right to baptism j 
and because the adult repents and believes he has a right to 
the very privilege which the child had antecedently. So 
far therefore from excluding children from baptism, adidts 
themselves have not a right to baptism till they repent and 
believe. And hence Peter says, ^^ Repent, and be baptized, 
every one of you," &c. That is, repentance in adults 
exalts them to equal privileges with children; in other 
words, invests adults with a right to the privileges which 
the children already possess. ^^ For the promise is unto 
you, and to your children.^' That is, "your children" are 
already included in " the promise," and therefore are noia 
entitled to baptism, the seal of the promise ; but yo;ui, having 
forfeited all right by transgression to the blessings of " the 
promise," can recover right to those blessings only by re- 
pentance. The reason why baptism is connected with re- 
pentance in the case of the adults is, because they had 
forfeited all right to baptism by transgression. More is 



THE GREAT COMMISSION. 271 



included in the scope of baptism than in that of repentance, 
repentance being' limited to adults, and baptism being ex- 
tended to both children, and to adults that repent. As 
repentance cannot be applied to, or required of infants, it 
cannot be made a prerequisite in their case to baptism, and 
on this account solely they cannot be justly excluded from 
baptism. And we conclude, that Peter, so far from repeal- 
ing the old divine statute that included infants in the cove- 
nant of grace, positively reaffirms their interest in the cove- 
nant, and so confirms their unconditional right to baptism, 
its seal under the Christian dispensation^ — a right which 
cannot be denied them without violating a fundamental prin- 
ciple of the plan of salvation. 

It may be added, Peter and the rest of the apostles were 
well acquainted with four things at this time, fii'st, that ^' the 
promise' ' of the " everlasting covenant,'^ made with Abra- 
ham, embraced ■•'children,^' "little ones;" secondly, that 
the children of proselytes, from the first, had been baptized 
with their parents; thirdly, that they addressed Jews on 
this occasion, who understood the scope of " the promise," 
and who had always been accustomed to bring their children 
under the same covenant with themselves; and fourthly, 
that baptism was substituted in the place of circumcision. 
'That, Peter, therefore, included the young children at this 
time, cannot be rationally questioned without setting aside 
these considerations. Indeed, Peter explicitly mentions 
CHILDREN as emhraced in the covenant still in force, and in 
his commission received from Clirist ; and if there were no 
other passage in the Xew Testament that refers to them 
directly or indirectly, by name or by implication, this 
single positive specification of children were sufficient to 
establish the divine and apostolic authority of infant baptism. 
Specifications of exceptions would have been required for 
departure from the old laws and usages familiar to the Jews; 



272 INFANT BAPTISM. 



but SO far from this, in accordance with the established j)rin- 
ciples and known feelings of the Jewish nation, Peter ex- 
pressly includes children, as entitled to the religicfus privileges 
of the new dispensation, in common with their parents : " for 
the promise is unto you and to your children." Peter 
himself, as a Jew, could not except them — or if he did, he 
must have satisfactorily vindicated his conduct before the 
scrupulous Jews. The parents were baptized because the 
promise of salvation was unto them ; but it certainly will 
be admitted on all hands, that the promise of salvation in- 
cludes little children ; and as the greater blessing involves 
the less, all who are entitled to salvation have as just and 
valid a title to baptism ; and hence, children have as good 
and valid a title to baptism as their parents — and so Peter 
included the children. That is, the promise of salvation by 
Jesus Christ, the seed of Abraham, is unto you and your 
children, and therefore you and your children are equally 
entitled to baptism, the initiatory rite of the Christian dis- 
pensation. How would you justify the declaration of Peter 
except on the ground that children were still embraced in 
the original covenant, and therefore were entitled to the 
same initiatory seal with their parents ? Nothing else could 
have justified or explained Peter's reference to children on 
the day of Pentecost; for certainly the children could not' 
^^repent'^ nor believe; and but with reference to baptism, 
their name might have been omitted altogether. Peter well 
knew, however, that reference to children was necessary in 
order to remind them of the continuation of their title to the 
outward seal of the covenant made with Abraham, and to 
express the ample range of the Christian dispensation in all 
ages of time. Had he omitted the children, the Jews would 
at once have replied, you preach not the whole promise made 
to our father Abraham, for it expressly embraces our ^'chil- 
dren'' '' our LITTLE ONES :" if we enter the Christian 



THE GREAT COMMISSION. 273 



chui'cli, therefore, we must be permitted to take our chil- 
dren with us. 

The fact that the apostle states repentance as a pre- 
requisite, has reference alone to those of responsible age, and 
cannot therefore invalidate the title of children to baptism 
which they had, because included in the promise. Reference 
to "the gift of the Holy Grhost," in this passage, places no 
barrier in the way of infant baptism — for it must first be 
proved that no special blessing is conferred upon children 
who are baptized, before this objection can be of any force. 
If there be any efficacy in the prayers of Grod's people at 
the time, or any benefit connected with covenanted privileges, 
there can be no doubt that certain special spiritual influences 
are communicated to the child consecrated to Grod in bap- 
tism, but to what extent, it cannot, in the very nature of 
things, be definitely assumed. The phrase, "As many as 
the Lord our God shall call," includes both Jews and Glen- 
tiles, in all ages of the Christian dispensation, who shall 
hear and obey the gospel. It is objected by Baptist writers, 
that "the promise referred to is evidently that which the 
apostle had previously announced in the closing verse of the 
passage he had quoted from the prophet Joel : " Whosoever 
shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.''' Hin- 
ton's Hist, of Baptism, p. 92. And Judson and Pendleton 
observe, "It is evident that this promise refers, not to the 
covenant of Abraham, but to the promise recorded in Joel 
ii. 28 : ^And it shall come to pass saith God, I will pour 
out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daugh- 
ters shall prophecy,' &c." Judson on Baptism, p. 49. Pen- 
dleton on Baptism and Communion, p. 26. To this objec- 
tion, we reply, in the first place, that the covenant made 
with Abraham is commonly, in the New Testament, referred 
to as the Promise, in contradistinction to the ceremonial 
and temporal promises of the Old Testament. "For the 



274 INFANT BAPTISM. 



PROMISE, that lie should be heir of the world, was not to 
Abraham or to his seed, through the law, but through the 
righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law 
be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise of none effect. 
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the 
end that the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to 
that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of 
the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all. The 
covenant which was before confirmed of Grod in Christ, the 
law, which was 430 years after, cannot disannul, that it 
should make the promise of none eff"ect. For if the inherit- 
ance be of the law, it is no more promise; but G-od gave 
it to Abraham by promise. '^ Eomans iv. 13, 14. Gal. iii. 
17, &c. Gral. iv. 28. This was the ^^ promise" to which 
Peter referred on the day of Pentecost. In the second 
place, the same apostle, on another occasion, proposes the 
same argument, to the same people, the Jews, in other lan- 
guage: '^Ye are the children of the covenant which God 
made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, and in thy 
seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." Acts 
iii. 25. On this occasion, the apostle enforces repentance 
for the remission of sins, (ver. 19;) so that no one can en- 
tertain a rational doubt respecting his meaning in this in- 
stance ; and thus the apostle explains his own words as refer- 
"^ rinor to the covenant made with Abraham. In the third 
place, Peter's reference to "all that are afar off"," is proof 
that he referred to the Abrahamic covenant. The Jews 
were already in the church, and hence did not need a new 
call into it, — "the jjromise is to you and your children." 
But the Gentiles were "afar off" — and hence the reference 
of Peter could not have been to the prophecy of Joel, which 
belonged to the Jews, but to the covenant made with Abra- 
ham, in whose "seed all the nations of the earth shoul(i be 
blessed." Peter therefore, when he said, "the promise is 



SUFFER LITTLE CHILDREN. 275 



to you and your children/' had his mind on the Abrahamic 
covenant. In the fourth place, how can it he possible that 
Peter referred to the prophecy of Joel on the day of Pente- 
cost, when he says expressly that the prophecy of Joel 
referred to the miraculous gifts of the Spirit bestowed, and 
wonderful events exhibited on the day of Pentecost ? Peter 
vindicated these miraculous displays of the Holy Spirit by 
referring to the prophecy of Joel : that is, the prophecy of 
Joel referred to the baptism of fire, the mighty rushing 
wind, the speaking with tongues, the prophesying, and all 
the stupendous scenes witnessed on the day of Pentecost. 
All this was distinct from the reference made by Peter to 
the "promise" made to Abraham: he refers to this, not 
in vindication of the solemn scenes of the day, but as en- 
couragement to those who were cut to the heart by the Holy 
Grhost under his preaching. In the fifth place, the miracu- 
lous gifts referred to by Joel, and poured out by the Holy 
Grhost upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost, are not 
poured out upon all the Jews, their children, and those who 
are afar ofi"; and hence the "promise'^ that embraces all 
" the Jews,'' their children, and those who are '^afar ofi",'' was 
the Abrahamic covenant, and not the prophecy of Joel. 
And finally, no matter whether "the promise" referred to 
was the prophecy of Joel or the Abrahamic covenant; in 
either case, it is made by Peter the reason for the baptism 
of children. 

3. "But Jesus said, suffer little children, and forbid 
them not, to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom 
of Grod." 3 First, the kingdom of heaven often means the 
church of Grod on earth ; that is, as the church has already 
been organized under the old dispensation, and the right of 
children to membership in it has been continued, suffer them 

10 Matt. xix. 14. 



276 



INFANT BAPTTSM. 



to come unto me, for of such is mj church, whose founda- 
tion I am about to establish by my death. Repeal not the 
old law, or that part of the original constitution that pro- 
vides for the church membership of children. Secondly, 
the phrase, "kingdom of heaven,^' sometimes refers to the 
kingdom of glory. If so, then by the most forcible infer- 
ence, infants are worthy of association with the church or 
kingdom of Grod on earth. What ! worthy of the kingdom 
of glory, through the merits of Christ, and yet not worthy, 
through the same merits, of association with the church, 
which is so soon to compose a part of the kingdom of glory ! 
Worthy of association with angels and archangels, cherubim 
and seraphim, principalities, powers, thrones, and dominions, 
in heaven, and yet not worthy of association with imperfect 
men on earth ! What, while holy angels with joy stand at 
the portals of immortality to receive the infant saints, and 
bear them to the Saviour, men, pious men, cherishing in- 
tensely the hope of reunion with their children in heaven, 
stand with a scrupulous vigilance at the door of the church 
on earth, and deny them a formal recognition of their right 
to all the blessings of the atonement! While Christ re- 
ceived them graciously, and pressed them tenderly to his 
bosom on earth, the church of Christ repulses them from 
her bosom ! and thinks she is acting the part of a mother ! 
that she inflicts no positive injury upon the "babes in 
Christ!'' While the church triumphant receives children 
into the dearest, holiest communion, the church militant, 
contending amid the trials and perils of time, denies them 
admission into her safe and hallowed courts, and excludes 
them from a participation in her sacred and holy privileges ! 
Why are the two great branches of the church, the one 
entered upon retribution, and the other in probation, still 
under the covenant of grace on earth, so different in this 
respect ? Here is a family : the parents are in the Baptist 



SUFFER LITTLE CHILDREN. 27* 



church. The parents die in the triumphs of faith, and 
ascend to the church triumphant, leaving their child, a 
young heir of glory, excluded from the church on earth. 
But the child soon follows, and is reunited with his parents 
in heaven — though he lived and died out of the church on 
earth — though he was denied association, by a formal dedi- 
cation, with the church on earth— though the title of chil- 
dren under the covenant is as good before as after death, 
and though the title of Christ to the infant is the same on 
earth as it is in heaven. And hence, as Christ and his 
church are the same in heaven and on earth, and children 
are worthy of the kingdom of heaven — worthy of its glories, 
and association with saints and angels in the immediate 
presence of Christ — they are worthy of association with the 
church on earth. 

"I take these little lambs/' said he, 
*' And lay them in my breast; 
Protection they shall find in me, 
In me be ever blest. 

*' Death may the bands of life unloose. 
But can't dissolve my love : 
Millions of infant souls compose 
The family above." 

^' Of such is the kingdom of heaven." Blessed opinion 
of infants! Let it be the epitaph on their tombstone. 
^'Of such is the kingdom of heaven." Blessed Jesus, we 
adopt it, and say, of such is thy church on earth, 
since what thou hast judged to be worthy of thy church in 
heaven, we cheerfully acknowledge is entitled to formal ad- 
mission into thy church on earth. 

Thus,, if the phrase, "kingdom of hea;ven," means the 
church of Grod on earth, then children have, upon the 
authority of Christ himself, a positive recognition of the 
coHtinuation of their original title to church membership — 

24 



278 INFANT BAPTISM. 



and the question of infant baptism is settled for ever in 
their favor. But if the phrase, ^'kingdom of heaven," 
means the kingdom of glory, then by the most convincing 
and satisfactory inference, children have a right to associa- 
tion with the church on earth, which right the church is 
bound to acknowledge by a formal and solemn consecration 
in baptism. That is, in either case, infants are here judged 
by Infinite Wisdom capable of the covenant of mercy; and 
so infants, ^^ little ones," were admitted into covenant, un- 
der the Old Testament dispensation, and received the seal 
of the covenant. Therefore, "suffer them to come unto 
me." But Christ is not now present with us — how then 
can infants be brought to him as he commands, but by dedi- 
cation in baptism? This is the general argument. But to 
be more particular : 

The original term as used by Matthew is, ra Tzatdia — ta 
paidia — the children; and as used by Luke is, ra ^picp-q — 
ta hrephe — the very little children; "for of such'' very little 
children is the kingdom of heaven. That is, little children 
who have not yet arrived at an age of accountability — all 
"sicch" are unconditionally entitled to all the blessings of 
my death, and embraced in my promise, or the everlasting 
covenant; and consequently they should receive the seal of 
the covenant, and so be received into my visible church. 
They have the thing signified, which is membership in the 
spiritual church, and therefore they should have the sign of 
it, which is baptism. The phrase, " the little children/' is 
strictly specific and designative, and thus Christ himself 
positively declares that all children indiscriminately are 
unconditionally entitled to the kingdom of heaven. But if 
children have a right to heaven, or the state of blessedness 
after death, this is the very right of the believer which is 
recognised in baptism ; indeed, this is the highest and most 
important signification of baptism as a seal on the part of 



SUFFER LITTLE CHILDREN. 279 



Grod. Believers are '^ heirs of Grod, and joint heirs with 
Christ'' — heirs to "an inheritance incorruptible:" so are 
children. But baptism, as a seal on the part of Grod, 
formally recognises the heirship of the believer ; hence chil- 
dren, who are invested with the same heirship, are entitled 
to the same formal recognition as heirs of God, and joint 
heirs with Christ. 

But if the expression, "kingdom of Grod,'' mean the 
invisible, spiritual church, which is composed of all true 
believers, then infants are in the same church with believers, 
and so should be baptized. But further, if the expression, 
"kingdom of God," mean the visible church, then the point 
in debate is at once settled in favor of the baptism of infants. 
But yet further, the kingdom of God comprehends all the 
redeemed on earth and in heaven, that is, the chui'ch in 
heaven, the spii'itual or invisible, and the church on earth, 
the visible ; therefore to be a member of the spiritual church, 
is to be a member of the whole church, except its visible 
organization, in which baptism is incorporated by divine 
enactment as a sensible formal recognition of association 
already existing with the spiritual church, as is the case 
with children; so that children cannot be excluded from 
baptism, without excluding them from the kingdom of God 
altogether. Admit that children are associated with Christ's 
spiritual kingdom — and no one will deny this — and it follows, 
that they have a right to the whole kingdom, visible and 
invisible ; and baptism is the formal seal of this right now 
existing — a comprehensive right to be enjoyed conditionally, 
should they live to adult age, and unconditionally, should 
they die in infancy. "The kingdom of God, is a phrase 
which is constantly employed in Scripture to denote that 
state of things which is placed under the avowed administra- 
tion of the Messiah." Robert Hall's Works, vol. i. 372. 
Children, then, being under the avowed administration of 



280 INFANT BAPTISM. 



Christ, which extends over the church in heaven and on 
earth, cannot he justly excluded from baptism, without 
legitimately excluding them from the administration of 
Christ altogether. 

It has been objected, that these little children were youth y 
arrived at accountable age. But Matthew and Mark say, 
" They brought unto him, izaidia — -paidia — ^little children,^* 
— not rcaidaq — ^aidas — children or youth. And Luke, as 
we have observed, says, ^' They brought unto him also, rd 
^pitpri — ta hrepJie — INFANTS,^^ which identical word is trans- 
lated hahe in other parts of the New Testament.** Besides, 
the command of Christ has reference to infants while in a 
state of infancy, or it can have no meaning that is intelligi- 
ble. Bring them to me now, while they are hahes, which 
injunction can have no reference to education, at such a 
time, but positively enjoins a formal consecration of them 
to the service of Christ. It has been assumed, that ^^of 
such'^ signifies adult Christians of a childlike disposition. 
But the reason why children were brought to Christ to be 
blessed by him, is to be found in themselves: " they brought 
little children, that he might put his hands on them, and 
bless them — and he took them in his arms, and blessed 
them." Moreover, what reason could there be to bless little 
children because adult Christians were to be of a childlike 
disposition ? Besides, he had presented the child specifically 
as a model for adult Christians on another occasion: ^^ Ex- 
cept 7/e be converted, and become as little children, ye shall 
not enter into the kingdom of heaven.^^ " 

^'But, ah," says another, ^^ these little children were young 
Christians." Not so, for they were brought to Jesus. 
Secondly, ''Jesus tooTc them up in his arms." And thirdly, 



11 For instance, Luke i. 41-44; ii. 12-16; Acts vii. 19; 1 Pet. ii. 2. 

12 Matt, xviii. 3. 



SUFFER LITTLE CHILDREN. 281 



the disciples never would have "rebuked^' any for bringing 
young Christians to Jesus that he might bless them. But 
that no doubt may remain respecting the age of these little 
children, consider the following testimony from Matthew 
Matthew and all the Evangelists agree, that Jesus compared 
his real disciples to these little children, when he said, as 
above, ^^ Except ye be converted, amd become as little chil- 
dren," &c. The displeasure manifested by the disciples was 
exhibited, in the expression of Jewish feelings, by the 
Pharisees, upon Christ's entry into Jerusalem: "who, when 
they saw the children crying in the temple, Hosanna tc 
the Son of David! wove sore displeased ; and said unto him, 
Hearest thou what these say ? And Jesus answered them, 
have ye never read, out of the mouths of babes and suck- 
lings THOU HAST PERFECTED PRAISE V^ Certainly babes 
and sucklings were infants ; and certainly, if out of their 
mouths God had perfected praisey they ought to be included 
by baptism with those who render him imperfect praises. 
And so when little children were brought to Christ for his 
blessing, the disciples rebuked those that brought them; 
that is, thought them too young to receive any spiritual 
good. But Mark describes our Lord as being " much dis- 
pleased,'' at the conduct of his disciples, immediately 
assuring them that infants are entitled to his blessing, 
because they are of his kingdom, or, under the everlasting 
covenant, entitled to membership in the Christian church. 
How indeed, after these rebukes, could the disciples of 
Christ and the haughty Pharisees look with indifference 
upon " little, ones^' — " hahes and sucklings f" And why 
should we hesitate a moment to consecrate them to him by 
baptism, who, with ineffable tenderness, benignity, and love, 
took them in his arms," put his hands upon them, and blessed 

15* Dr. Clarke, in his commentary, observes, " 'And he took them up in 
his arms' — one of the Itala reads in ainu suo — 'in his bosom.* Jesus 

24* 



282 INIANT BAPTISM. 



them, and accepted their hosannas as the perfection of his 
praise ? 

4. " Except ye be converted, and become as little chil- 
dren, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." " 

Here the child is made the standard of the adult believer. 
Such a person is baptized as a copy, and received into the 
church, preparatory to his reception into heaven. What, 
baptize the cojpy^ and not the standard ? Receive the copy 
into the church because it conforms to the standard, and yet 
reject the standard! Why, it seems that the standard were 
incomplete if it be not baptized; indeed, that the standard 
has a stronger claim to church membership than the copy, 
or at least that the child should be baptized before the copy 
can properly and legally recognise it as a standard. In a 
word, one who baptizes adult believers a$ little children, 
cannot refuse baptism to the little children themselves. 

5. ^^As by the offence of one judgment came upon 
all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of 
one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of 
life."" 

Adults who present themselves for admission into the 
church by baptism, are in a state of "justification," accept- 
ance, and pardon, obtained by faith in our Lord Jesus 
Christ. But as infants, who had been brought into a state 
of condemnation by the "offence of Adam," have been re- 
stored to a state of justification, pardon, and divine favor, 

Christ loves little children; and they are the objects of his most peculiar 
care. Who can account for their continual 'preservation and stipport 
while exposed to so many dangers, but on the ground of a peculiar and 
extraordinary providence ?" And he adds, under the next verse, "though 
little children, they were capable of receiving Christ's blessing." If Christ 
embraced them, why should not his church embrace them ? Why not 
dedicate them to God by baptism ? And he ascribes neglect of this duty 
to "unaccountable bigotry or carelessness." 

14 Matt, xviii. 3. i^ Rom. v, 18. 



OTHER SCRIPTURES IN PROOF. -^83 



by the " rigliteousness" or atonement of Clirist^ (Ley also 
should be received into the churcb by baptism. In other 
words, all persons, without exception, who are in a state of 
"justification," ought to be baptized. Infants are in a state 
of justification, and therefore they ought to be baptized. 

~6. "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ 
have PUT on Christ." *^ 

That is, ye who have been baptized, whether in infancy 
or adult age, have entered into the visible kingdom of Christ, 
since baptism under the Christian dispensation, is substituted 
as a badge of profession, for circumcision, as a badge of pro- 
fession, under the Jewish dispensation. And so the follow- 
ing verse: "If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, 
and heirs according to the promise." Now Abraham, under 
a difi"erent dispensation, hut under the same covenant of 
grace, was permitted to bring his children with him into 
covenant with Grod ; and as a change of dispensations does 
not affect any change in the general covenant of grace, con- 
sequently the corresponding change of the initiatory rite 
from circumcision to baptism, does not exclude infants from 
covenant relations under the Christian dispensation. That 
is, believers in Christ, under the Christian dispensation, are 
reckoned as children of Abraham. Faith brings the Gentile 
parent into the same relation to^, the covenant of salvation 
that Abraham sustained by faith under the Abrahamic dis- 
pensation; and therefore the children of Grentile believers 
are as much entitled to the initiating seal of the covenant 
under the Christian dispensation, as the children of Abra- 
ham were under the covenant when made with him. 

7. "That the covenant that was confirmed before in 
Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years 
after, cannot disannul, that it should make tJie promise of 

16 Gal. iii. 27. 



284 INFANT BAPTISM. 



none effect." *7 The right of children, therefore, to the 
outward, visible sign and seal of the covenant, is POSITIVELY 
CONFIRMED and CONTINUED under the gosjtel. ^' None 
effect" — c'-annot effect any change in rights of children set 
forth in the original constitution. The Baptists call for 
positive commands — here is a clear, unqualified, compre- 
hensive, positive recognition of the entire scope of the 
original covenant of grace made with Abraham — and that 
covenant specifically recognised the right of children to cove- 
nant relations, which right, Paul positively declares, has not 
been annulled, but is still in full force. 

8. "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be 
ignorant how that all our fathers were under the cloud, 
and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto 
Moses in the cloud and in the sea." ^^ 

Why would not the apostle have us ignorant of this im- 
pressive and important circumstance of the Jewish dispensa- 
tion ? Because he regarded it in the solemn character of an 
"example." (Yer. 11.) And who were these "fathers?" 
They were those very Jews who came out of Egypt, and 
were destroyed in the wilderness, and those little ones, 
children, which in that day — the time of the passage of the 
Bed Sea — " had no knowledge of good and evil," and, sur- 
viving the journey through the wilderness, entered with 
Joshua into the possession of Canaan. Thus, the baptism 
of these "little ones" happened unto them "for our ex- 
amples, upon whom the ends of the world are come." Be- 
sides, Tu-Kot, tupoi, here translated "examples," generally 
has a figurative signification in the Old Testament, repre- 
senting some future institutions under the New Testament, 
and therefore may be regarded somewhat in the light of 
prophecy. And thus, as the baptism of the fathers and 

1" Gal. iii. ir. IS 1 Cor. x. 1, 2. 



OTHER SCRIPTURES IN PROOF. 285 



their children, under the cloud and in the sea, bound them 
over to legal obedience, and united them to the church in 
the wilderness, so the apostle reminds us that baptism, un- 
der the gospel dispensation, binds believers and their chil- 
dren to evangelical obedience, and unites them with the 
Christian church. If such be not the meaning of the pas- 
sage before us, then the apparent solicitude of the apostle is 
divested of its impressive force and dignity. The ^^ fathers" 
referred to were baptized in infancy, "in the cloud and in 
the sea," and the apostle expressly designates and enjoins 
their haptism AS AN EXAMPLE FOR US. The Baptists de- 
mand either precept or example for infant baptism in the 
Bible : here are both in the same chapter. 

9. " That he might gather together in one all things in 
Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, 
even in him."^^ Are children through mercy in Christ 
worthy of union in this general association ? Are they to 
be regarded as the babes in this vast family of God ? Un- 
questionably they are. Then they ought to be formally 
admitted into his church. 

10. "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the 
wife ; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; 
else were your children unclean, but now are they holy." ^^ 

The apostle here incidentally refers to the practice of 
infant baptism, as if it were a subject universally admitted 
in his days. "Else were your children unclean, but now 
they are holy," that is, ayLd, here translated "holy," com- 
monly means those who are baptized into the faith of Christ. 
Its corresponding Hebrew term, hedushim, signified all the 
Jews who entered into covenant with God, under the Jewish 
dispensation, by circumcision — and infants were circum- 
cised. And so the Jews considered the children of heathens 

19 Eph. i. 10. 20 1 Cor. vii. U. 



286 INFANT BAPTISM. 



unlioly wlao were born hefore their parents became prose- 
lytes, and all the children holy who were born after their 
parents became proselytes. The apostle does not mean that 
holiness of nature is hereditary , but that relatively, children 
are entitled to baptism. 

If the Baptists so explain these scriptures as to make 
them inapplicable to infants, then I ask, in what scriptures 
is the salvation of infants referred to ? All such scriptures 
will support our argument just as well as those we have 
adduced. But if they explain these away, and all others 
like them, they cut off, at a single stroke, the last hope of 
infant salvation; because upon this mode of interpretation, 
the absence of all reference in the Scriptures, expressed or 
implied, to infant salvation, as certainly deprives them of 
all title to salvation, as the absence of scriptures explicitly 
recognising and confirming the title of children to church 
membership would deprive them of baptism. Certainly, 
the foundation of the Baptist Church is not established 
upon the condemnation of all infants under the Christian 
dispensation. And yet I do not see how it is possible to 
deny the right of infants to baptism, the sign, without at 
the same time denying their right to salvation, the thing 
signified : and so we conclude, all scriptures that recognise 
infants as proper subjects of salvation, without the discharge 
of any conditions on their part, at the same time compre- 
hend a recognition of their right to baptism, independently 
of the discharge of any conditions on their part whatever. 
And when to this consideration it is added, that there 

ARE SCRIPTURES THAT FURNISH BOTH PRECEPT AND EX- 
AMPLE FOR INFANT BAPTISM, THE CONCLUSION IS IN THE 
HIGHEST DEGREE SATISFACTORY, THAT INFANT BAPTISM 18 

AN INSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH, Under the Christian dis- 
jpensation, and made solemnly hinding on the church to the 
end of time. 



OIKOS — OIKIA. 287 



CHAPTER V. 

SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT CONTINUED. 

Oikos — Oik{a> 

Infant baptism derives the strongest support from a 
proper discrimination between the meaning of the terms 
oixoq^ oikos — and ouia, oikia. If the translators of the 
Old and New Testaments had observed the difference in the 
specific meaning of these two terms, the Baptist Church 
never could have obtained a distinct and separate existence 
in the world. Upon a candid examination of the Old and 
New Testaments, it will be found, that the sacred writers 
use the term oikos, house, in the specific sense of family, 
with special reference to infants ; and, therefore, when the 
apostles say they baptized houses, wliole houses, the terms 
are synonymous with families, and are used with special 
reference to infants as included in the sacred rite. Indeed, 
the more learned Baptists now admit, that the term oikos, 
as it is now used in the New Testament, is synonymous with 
family, and consequently, that it includes infants — and as 
the learned are the only proper judges of an argument of 
this character, the validity and authority of infant baptism 
are hereby supported and established by the unanimous 
decision of the learned world. 

These terms are not interchangeable. 

1. Let us first investigate the meaning of the term 

' See Taylor's Apostolic Baptism. 



288 INFANT BAPTISM. 



OIK [A, oikia. '^And the wise men came into the oikia — 
out-houses — the stable where the young child was^ and found 
him and his parents."'' ^^He (Peter) lodgeth with one 
Simon, a tanner, whose oikia is by the seaside." ^ Now a 
tanner's business requires much space, and several out- 
houses, and so Simon selected the seaside. The men who 
were sent to inquire for Peter, inquired for the oihia of 
Simon, and stood before the gate of the tanner's yard.* 

Consider Peter's supernatural deliverance from prison, as 
it is described in the 12th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. 
"And when he had considered the thing he came to the 
house — oihia — of Mary ; and he knocked at the door of tlie 
gate'' — the outer gate. And Rhoda came out to listen, but 
" she opened not the gate for gladness, but ran in'' — (ver. 14 ;) 
ran across the court-yard back again — " and told how Peter 
stood before the gate." Oikos is never substituted for oikia. 
Throughout the Old and New Testaments, the sacred writers 
never interchange the one for the other ; every writer pre- 
serves a distinction. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all say of 
the paralytic, "take up thy bed, and go to thy house — 
oikon^ "Devouring widow's houses" — oikia, not oikos. 
The dwelling of Cornelius is called his oikos, by the servants 
of Cornelius, by Cornelius himself, and by Peter twice ]^ but 
the dwelling of Simon, the tanner, is called oikia, by the 
angel, by the evangelist, by Cornelius, and by Peter. 
Again : oikos is a masculine noun, and oikia is feminine. 
Masculine and feminine nouns are not interchangeable in the 
G-reek. Again: a jpart can never be equivalent to the 
whole, nor be interchangeable with it. Oikos may be a 
part of oikia, and thus the notion of a retired apartment of 
a large building is frequently expressed by the term oikos 
by the ancient Greek writers. 

2 Matt. U. 11. 3 Acts X. 6. ^ Acts xi. 11. ^ Acts xi. 12, 13. 



OIKOS — OIKIA. 289 



2. The term oikos alone k used in the sense of family, 
and CHILDREN are the primary and immediate objects 
of oikosj house, family. It is impossible to separate 
the idea of children from the term oikos, house, family. 
Thus, "house of Israel" — "house of Jacob'^ — "house of 
Judah" — "house of David" — imply young children, infants; 
for without the infants, what becomes of the family, of the 
house, of the nation ? And so in the instances of Cornelius, 
the jailer, Lydia, Stephanus, Crispus, Onesiphorus, Aris- 
tobulus, and Narcissus, with many believers who formed the 
Church of Corinth, and the families of the bishop, the 
deacon, and the young women, referred to in the Epistle to 
Timothy, it is incredible to suppose children, infants, are 
not included. 

3. Oikia includes more than the family, as it some- 
times includes the slaves, servants, or attendants of the 
family. " Be not as a lion in thy house, oikia, nor frantic 
among thy servants."^ "As the sun rising in heaven, is a 
good wife to her household" ^ — oikias. " All the saints salute 
you, especially those who are of Caesar's household" « — oikias. 
But not one of Caesar's family was at this time convertesd to 
Christianity, while some of his household servanfs, attend- 
ants, or courtiers were, as we are informed in the Scriptures : 
here oikia is used, and does not include children. 

4. There cannot be better authority than Aristotle 
on this subject, who, writing on the polity of cities, 
thus defines a house: "A house is a society or companion- 
ehip connected together according to the course of nature, 
for long continuance." Such a society is called by Cha- 
rondas, "those who eat from the same cupboard," or pantry; 
but it is called by Epimenides, " those who sit around the 
same fireside;" or, as Du Val, the editor of Aristotle, sup- 



6 Eccles. iv. 30, 'Ibid. xxvi. 16. ^ Philip, iv. 22. 

25 



290 INFANT BAPTISM. 



poseH, 'Hhose who sit around the same table." Such a so- 
ciety, says Aristotle, is an oiKOS or house. Aristotle also 
distinguishes between oikosyhouse, and oikia^ household, just 
as the Scripture does. Says he, ^'in order to obtain a clear 
idea of the parts of which a city is composed, it is necessary 
that we should previously explain what an oikia is. For 
every city is composed of connected oikias : and further, 
an oikia is composed of several parts; and these placed 
together in their stations, constitute the oikia. But a 
complete oikia comprises those who are servants, and those 
who are free.'' Here the term oikos, house, family, ex- 
cludes the oikia, household; but the term oikia includes 
the oikos, house. Thus, a Grreek scholar meeting with the 
term oikos, in the New Testament, would understand it as 
follows : — '^ We baptized Lydia, with her family, connected 
together according to the course of nature, for long con- 
tinuance. We baptized the jailer, with all those who eat 
from the same cupboard with himself. I baptized those 
who sit around the same f reside or eat from the same table 
with my valued friend Stephanus." 

The Old Testament writers use the term oikos, house, in 
the sense as above. "Thou, Lord Grod of Israel, hast 
revealed to thy servant, saying, I will build thee a house'' 
— oikos^ — establish thy family. "The Lord telleth thee, 
he will make thee a house" ^° — oikos. "Now let it please 
thee to bless the house — oikos — of thy servant- — and with 
thy blessing let the house — oikos, family — of thy servant 
be blessed for ever." " 

5. In proof that the term oikos, house, has special 
reference to children, distinct from their parents. " Then 
shall his brother's wife spit in his face, and say. So shall it 
be done unto the man who will not build up his brother's 

8 2 Sam. vii. 27. ^o 2 Sam. vii. 11. " 2 Sam. vii. 29, 



OIKOS — OIKIA. 291 



HOUSE "*^ — oihos. So in other scriptures.*^ "All the souls 
of the house — oikos — of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were 
threescore and ten." ** But it is stated in the 26th verse, 
" All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, were three- 
score and six.'^ Here the former number cannot be made 
up without the children of Joseph, and hence, mathemati- 
cally and strictly, the term oikos in this instance includes 
infants, as may be further proved. "Now these are the 
names of the children of Israel, who came into Egypt, every 
man, with all his house^'^^ — Ttavoixij panoiki. That the term 
panoiM includes little children is evident from G-en. xlvi. 5. 
"And the sons of Israel carried Jacob their father, and their 
little ones, &c., in the wagons which Pharaoh had sent to 
carry him." Now the term panoiki, "with all his house," 
is the same that is used in the instance of the jailer's bap- 
tism ; and as the apostles deviated not from the long-settled 
and popular meaning of the language in which they wrote, 
the term panoiki in the case of the jailer's baptism, as 
clearly includes infants as it does in the case of all Jacob's 
family. In the case of the baptism of Cornelius, the term 
employed is ahv rLavrt rm otxio — "with all his house, feared 
God, and were all baptized." Yes, infants feared G-od — as 
Samuel did, when he "ministered" in the sanctuary; and 
as Timothy did, when he " studied the Scriptures." " The 
heave-offerings have I given to thee and thy sons, and to 
thy daughters with thee, every one that is clean in thy 
house" — oikos — -family .'^'^ " I will raise up evil against thee 
[David] out of thine own house" — oikos, family y^ 

This meaning of the term oikos was adopted by the apos- 
tles, as is evident from the following references, in which 
the parents are explicitly distinguished from their children. 

12 Deut. XXV. 9. 13 Gen. xvi. 2 ; Gen. xxx. 3, «fcc. 

14 Gen. xlvi. 27-31. ^ Ex. i. 1. 

16 Num. xviii. 11. i7 2 Sam. xii. 11. 



292 INFANT BAPTISM. 



Lydia, and her house, oiJcos ; the bishop, and his house^ 
oikos ; the deacoiij and his house, oikos ; the family, oiJcos, 
of Stephanus, separate from himself; the family, oikos, of 
Crispus, separate from himself; the family, oikos, of One- 
siphorus, separate from himself: all of which clearly and 
conclusively imply that the distinction between the parents 
and the children was still preserved, and that special refer- 
ence was had to the children. 

Oikos, house, in the Old Testament, sometimes means 
INFANTS explicitly. '^Dathan and Abiram came out and 
stood in the door of their tents, and their wives, and their 
sons, and their little children. And the earth opened her 
mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses" — oikos, 
that is, their ^^ little children,'^" ^'The increase of his 
house — oikos — shall depart."^^ And so in other scrip- 
tures. 2° " Their children also shall be dashed to pieces be- 
fore their eyes; their houses — oikos — shall be spoiled."^ 
"For I know him (Abraham) that he will command his 
children, even his house — oikos — after him." "And all 
the people that were in the gate, and the elders said — The 
Lord make the woman that is come into thy house [dwelling- 
house] like Rachael and like Leah, which two did build the 
HOUSE — OIKOS— of Israel: and let thy house — oikos, 
FAMILY — be like the house — oikos — of Pharez, whom Tamar 
bare Unto Judah, of the seed which the Lord shall give thee 
of this young woman.'' ^^ If there were no other text in 
the Bible on this subject, the one we have just quoted were 
sujB&cient to prove that oikos, house, means infants, expli- 
citly. Many other instances might be added, but these are 
sufficient to establish the sense of the term oikos, as it is 
used by the Old Testament writers. This sense the apostles 



18 Num. xvi. 27, 32. '9 Job xx. 28. 20 i gam. ii. 3; Ps. IxvUi. 6. 
21 Isa. xiii. 16. 22 Ruth iv. 11-12. 



OIKOS OIKIA. 293 

adopted and continued. And hence, wlien it is said that 
they baptized houses, we are to understand that the term 
house is added, with special reference to children, in- 
fants. If infants had been excluded from baptism, the 
term oikos, whose popular and fixed acceptation was known 
to embrace children, would have been omitted in the sacred 
narrative. If the apostles intended to invest this term with 
a sense entirely new, the bold intention should have been 
explicitly made known to the world. But so far from devi- 
ating from the ancient, common, and popular sense of the 
term, they give it the most comprehensive meaning possible. 
There is not an instance in the New Testament in which 
OIKOS, HOUSE, is used, but it embraces children, and in 
many places distinct from their parents. Thus, Paul bap- 
tized the family — oihos — of Stephanus, but not Stephanus 
himself J he salutes the family — oikos — of Onesiphorus, 
but omits Onesiphorus . himself. In these instances the 
apostle invests the term with the greatest possible scope. 

Again : it embraces children in the youngest possible state 
in life. "One [bishop] that ruleth well his own house — 
oikos — having his children in subjection with all gravity. 
For if a man know not how to rule his own house — oikos — 
how shall he take care of the church of Grod." ^ Here chil- 
dren are the house, requiring the wise and prudent manage- 
ment of a father. And so with respect to the deacons: 
" Let the deacons be the husband of one wife, ruling their 
children, even their own houses — oikos — well.^'^ Indeed, 
the term oikos imports babes and sucklings.- " I will there- 
fore that the young women marry, bear children, guide the 
house^'*^ — olxodeffTzorsTv, oikodespotein, that is, rule, guide, 
direct their family, children, infants, babes, and sucklings. 
That such, for example, was the character of Lydia's family 

23 1 Tim. iii. 4, 5. 24 jbid, iu. 12. 35 i xim. y. 14. 

25* 



294 INFANT BAPTISM. 



is evident. It is said of Lydia, that " her heart was opened 
by the Lord; and that she attended to the things spoken by 
Paul." But nothing is said of her family until her hajptism 
is referred to, when her family is now first mentioned — 
"and when she was haptized, and Tier family^^ — oihos. 
And when it is said that Grispus and his family, Cornelius 
and his family, the Philippian jailer and his family, and 
Lydia and her family, were all baptized, no exception is 
mentioned; an\i when, according to the popular use of the 
term, oiJcos is addedj with special reference to children, the 
conclusion is so strengthened as to render it morally certain 
that children were included in the sacred rite. 

7. But further : we have but few instances of the baptism 
of families mentioned in the Scriptures. In the church at 
Philippi, we have but two instances mentioned, that of 
Lydia, and that of the jailer. In the church at Corinth, 
but two, that of Crispus, and that of Stephanus: and yet 
besides, " many of the Corinthians believed, and were bap- 
tized" — and the inference is, that there were many families 
among these believers. On the day of Pentecost, three 
thousand believed, and were baptized: is it credible that 
the parents did not take their families with them, especially 
when their "children'' were expressly referred to by Peter 
as embraced in the "promise?" 

I quote the following remark from the author to whom I 
am indebted for the argument contained in this chapter. 
"We have this evidence on this subject — four Christian 
families recorded as baptized — that of Cornelius, of Lydia, 
of the jailer, and of Stephanus." Including the four fami- 
lies of Crispus, Onesiphorus, Aristobulus, and Narcissus — 
he continues : " Have we eight instances of the administra- 
tion of the Lord's supper? Not half the number. Have 
we eight instances of the change of the Christian Sabbath 
from the Jf^wish? Not perhaps one-fourth of the number. 



OIKOS — OIKIA. 295 



Yet those services are vindicated by tlie practice of the 
apostles as recorded in the New Testament. How then can 
we deny their practice on the subject of infant baptism, 
when it is established by a series of more numerous instances 
than can possibly be found in support of any doctrine, prin- 
ciple, or practice derived from the example of the apostles ? 
Is there any other case besides that of baptism, on which we 
would take families at hazard, and deny the existence of 
young children in them? Take eight families at a venture 
in a street, or eight pews containing families in a place of 
worship, and they will afford more than one young child. 
Take eight families on a fair average: suppose half to con- 
sist oi four children, and half of eight children : the average 
is six: calculate the chances, that in forty-eight children, 
not one should be an infant: it is hundreds of thousands to 
one. But there is no occasion that absolute infancy should 
be the object: suppose children of two or three years old; 
the chances would be millions to one, that none such were 
found among forty-eight children, composing six families. 
Or supposing baptism were completely out of sight — how 
many young children would be found, on the average, in 
eight families, each containing six children? What pro- 
portion do these eight families, identified and named in the 
New Testament, bear to those of Christians also identified 
and named? The number of names of persons converted 
after the resurrection of Christ, in the Acts of the Apostles, 
is twenty -eigiit. Four baptized families give the proportion 
of one in seven. The number of names of similar converts 
in the whole of the New Testament is fifty-five. How 
many converts may be fairly inferred from the history of 
the Acts of the Apostles? ten thousand. This gives one 
THOUSAND BAPTIZED FAMILIES. How many from the 
whole of the New Testament ? — one hundred thousand? — this 
gives TEN THOUSAND BAPTIZED FAMILIES. How many 



296 INFANT BAPTISM. 



must be allowed during the first century, and down to tlie 
days of Origen? one million? — it gives one hundred 
THOUSAND BAPTIZED FAMILIES: ten millions P the pro- 
portion is ONE MILLION BAPTIZED FAMILIES. This Calcu- 
lation, or one to the same effect, can neither be evaded or 
confuted/' ^ 

"We are surprised when Baptist authors affirm that but 
three instances of what they call household baptism occurred 
in the days of the apostles. Four families are expressly 
mentioned as having been baptized, and four by inference, 
while " many" others are likewise implied. We will con- 
sider a moment the methods by which the Baptists attempt 
to disprove that there were children in the families of Lydia, 
Stephanus, and the jailer. 

They assert that all the jailer's family must have been 
adults because they "rejoiced in Grod.'^ Yes, just as the 
"babes and sucklings" did in the temple, when they 
cried, ^'JSosanna to the Son of David." But, continues 
the objection, "the apostles spake the word of the Lord unto 
him, and to all that were in his house," and it is concluded, 
that little children were too young to comprehend the word 
of the Lord. But this phrase, " all in his house," may re- 
fer to others who had been aroused by the earthquake, and 
the alarm of the jailer, and had assembled with him in his 
own apartment, where they were addressed by the apostles, 
as any minister of the gospel would do now under such ex- 
citing circumstances. Besides, the G-reek term is oikia, 
household^ which includes the jailer's servants, who were old 
enough to understand the word spoken by the apostles. But 
when his baptism is mentioned, all his oikos, family ^ (ver. 
31,) are straightway included. 

But again, it is objected, "all the members of the jailer's 

26 Apostolic Baptism, pp. 55-57. 



OIKOS — OIKIA. 297 



house helievedj because it is said, he "rejoiced, helieving in 
God with all his house." But this is refuted at once by 
reference to the original word — Tzsmffreuxmq, pepisteuhos — 
which is in the singular number, and refers alone to the 
jailer. Now I ask, is there any proof derived from a candid 
consideration of the jailer's case, to justify the unscrupulous 
and uncompromising opposition of the Baptists to infant 
baptism. There is not one particle of proof found in this 
instance against infant baptism — not even the remotest in- 
ference, much less explicit prohibition. And shall the rights 
of infants, t-hat had been acknowledged under the same cove- 
nant of grace from the beginning, be invalidated and abso- 
lutely set aside by a mere surmise, which has finally assumed 
the force of a dogma, totally destitute of even fair inference 
to support it ? The name and acts of the head of the family 
only are mentioned, and the baptism of his family follows 
incidentally, as a matter depending upon the head of the 
family. The Baptists assert that the family of Lydia were 
adults, because it is said, the apostles "went out of prison, 
and entered into the house of Lydia : and when they had 
seen the brethren, they comforted them.'' ^ The " brethren" 
are supposed to be the sons of Lydia. But, in the first 
place, it is wholly gratuitous to assume that the family of 
Lydia comprised sons: not one word is said whether the 
family of Lydia was composed of sons or daughters. And 
in the second place, these " brethren," whom Paul and Silas 
" comforted," were the " Christians of Philippi," and not 
Lydia's family, as the Scripture history most clearly demon- 
strates. The whole case is Si public transaction. Paul and 
Silas expel a Pythonic spirit from a certain damsel; her 
" masters" prevail upon the " magistrates" to imprison Paul 
and Silas. In the mean while, at midnight, the jailer is 

'^ Acts xvi. 40. 



298 INFANT BAPTISM. 



converted, and the next day the apostles are publicly released 
from prison — and now what follows? Why, the apostles 
go straightway to the house t)f Lydia, where the Christians 
of Philippi had assembled, under the exciting circumstances, 
whom the apostles ^'comfort,'' and then they "depart/' 
No, say others, those "brethren were her servants , employed 
in preparing the purple dye which she sold; and her house 
contained only hrethren, probably menservants, whom Paul 
comforted/' In the first place, the term used is oikos^ 
family, and not oikia, household, which terms are never 
used interchangeably by the sacred writers, and therefore, 
the servants are not included or referred to in the term 
family. In the second place, from the whole narrative we 
learn, that Timothy and Luke were with Paul and Silas at 
the house of Lydia when they were taken by the "magis- 
trates,'' and imprisoned.2^ Paul would have Timothy " to 
go forth with him," so here Timothy is with Paul and Silas 
at the house of Lydia: "And it came to pass as we went 
to prayer," (ver. 16,) — who? The brethren above, and 
Luke — the writer of Lydia' s conversion and baptism and the 
circumstances following. These were among the " brethren," 
and probably were included among those whom Paul and 
Silas found and "comforted," on their release from prison. 
Thirdly, it is not stated that one of Lydia' s servants was 
baptized.23 Indeed, not a passage of Scripture, in my judg- 

28 Acts xvi. S. 

29 <'It is however conjectured, first, that she had come on a trading 
voyage, from Thyatira to Philippi, to sell purple; as if a woman of 
Thyatira might not be settled in business at Philippi as a seller of this 
article. Then, as if to mark more strikingly the hopelessness of the 
attempt to torture this passage to favor an opinion, "her house" is made 
to consist of journeymen dyers, "employed in preparing the purple she 
sold;" which, however, is a notion at variance with the former; for if 
she was on a mere trading voyage, she most probably brought her goods 
ready dyed, and would have no need of a dying establishment. To 



OIKOS — OIKIA. 299 



ment at least, can he produced, in which oikia, household, 
is connected with baptism. The Syriac, the very best of all 
versions, and which was made in the first century, reads, 
"And when she (Lydia) was baptized with her chil- 
dren," &c. The Coptic version has the same reading. Of 
the Syriac version. Dr. A. Clarke observes, it "is very 
valuable and of great authority." Of the Coptic version 
he says, "it is supposed to have been made in the fifth 
century." 

To close this chapter : — At least four hundred instances 
might he adduced from sacred and profane writers, in which 
OYK.0^, family, includes children of ALL AGES. The editor 
of Calmet adduces at least fifty examples in proof that 
otxoq, house — when applied to persons, denotes a family of 
children, including children of all ages, and says, that 
three hundred instances have been examined, and prove the 
same thing in a most satisfactory manner. Ed. of Cal. p. 155. 
The Jews were accustomed to receive the families of prose- 
lytes by baptism into the Jewish church, and hence would 
expect to see their children admitted by baptism into the 
Christian church, upon the abolition of circumcision. Gen- 
tile families entered the Jewish church by circumcision, 
sacrifice, and baptism; and therefore G-entile families, on 
the abolition of circumcision and sacrifice, would expect to 
take their children with them into the Christian church by 
baptism. And the nice and invariable distinction preserved 
by the apostles between the meaning of oikos, family, and 
oikia, household, confirms the conclusions of this chapter. 

complete the whole, these journeyman dyers, although not a word is said 
about their conversion, nor even of their existence, in the whole story, 
are raised into the "brethren (a term which manifestly denotes the 
members of the Philippian church) whom Paul and Silas are said to 
have seen and comforted in the house of Lydia, before their departure." 
Watson's Theo. Inst. vol. i. 641, 642. 



30O INFANT BAPTISM. 



CHAPTER VI. 

SILENCE OF SCRIPTURE, ETC. 



Even granting that infant baptism is not a subject of 
positive institution — which we do not — then there are evi- 
dences as strong as a positive enactment in its favor. For 
upon the laws of mind, a conviction of the truth from col- 
lateral, circumstantial evidence, may be equivalent to a 
demonstration from positive evidence. But, it is to be ob- 
served, that no array or amount of circumstances in them- 
selves false, or even plausible, can sustain that which does 
not exist or support error as truth. And when, in order to 
establish a position, as in the case of infant baptism, both 
positive and circumstantial evidence is produced, conviction 
of its truth is satisfactory in the highest degree. Having, 
presented the first department of evidence, the positive and 
direct, we now invite attention to the circumstantial proofs 
in favor of infant baptism. 

1. The silence of the Scriptures. 

As the church and covenant remain the same under all 
dispensations, infants are entitled to church membership 
under all dispensations — unless some positive repeal, or modi- 
fying innovation respecting them, he expressly declared hy 
God. 

In the Old Testament, the system of Christianity was in- 
stituted, and in the New Testament, it is established: insti- 
tuted in view of the coming of Christ, and established by 
his death. Originally, a positive enactment entitled infants 
to a participation in the provisions of the covenant, and 



THE SILENCE OF SCRIPTURE. 301 



membership in tlie church, and this enactment secured these 
privileges in all previous dispensations : hence some divine 
repeal of old privileges and rights must be made by Grod, 
before they can be excluded from membership in the church 
under the Christian dispensation. 

The introduction of infants by Grod himself into the 
church is undoubted : the identity of the covenant of mercy, 
under all dispensations, is also undoubted: the consequent 
identity of the church under every dispensation, is likewise 
undoubted: the admission of infants into the church of Grod 
for two thousand years, is also undoubted : now point me to 
the time, the manner, and the declaration, when the cove- 
nant was changed, when the church was altered, and when 
children were excluded, and I must surrender their right to 
church membership, under the Christian dispensation. Can 
it be done ? It cannot : and as it cannot be done, the sup- 
posed silence of the New Testament is confirmatory of the 
rights of infants to baptism. 

Any right takes date from the most recent enactment. 
Grant — ^which we do not — that none has been explicitly 
made respecting children since the original organization of 
the church under the Old Testament; even then the original 
enactment respecting the right of children to church mem- 
bership remains in full force under the Christian dispensa- 
tion, and must continue so till repealed by the authority of 
Grod. This is the only way to arrive at the mind of God, 
respecting any thing on which he has spoken with legislative 
authority. And yet it is argued, that the silence of the 
New Testament on this subject is a sufficient repeal. That 
is, that God's silence repeals what he has spoken — ^what he 
has explicitly and expressly enacted, and never explicitly 
and expressly repealed. On what principle can God's si- 
lence be so interpreted, when his plain loords are sometimes 
so hard to be properly understood? Nothing is clearer in 

26 



302 INFANT BAPTISM. 



tlie range of reason, than that the silence of God, on any- 
subject on which he has spoken, and expressly commanded, 
implies still, with the force of positive repetition^ the con- 
tinuation of what has been positively instituted and com- 
manded. And therefore, the obligation to acknowledge the 
right of children to church membership under the Christian 
dispensation is as strong, and sacredly binding, as when 
God originally instituted and commanded it under the old 
dispensations, or as it would be, had he originally done so 
in the days of Christ. No man can alter or repeal what 
God has not seen proper to change; and hence the silence 
of the New Testament on this subject would be an impressive 
and divine confirmation of the rights of infants to church 
membership, and consequent authority for the administra- 
tion of infant baptism. In other words : an institution once 
made by God must be considered in full force till repealed 
by him : such was the right of infants to church member- 
ship, under all former dispensations : this right must be re- 
pealed by the authority that originated it, before infants can 
be excluded from church membership, under any subsequent 
dispensation: this right has not been repealed by God: 
therefore it must remain in as full force as when originally 
instituted. The last law must prevail till repealed; and in 
the case of infants, ^Hhe promise,'^ or covenant of grace, 
founded upon the vicarious death of Christ, is the law by 
which infants are entitled to baptism, the seal of the cove- 
nant. The Adamic law of works was in force till set aside 
by the law of grace. To repeal the law of grace is to de- 
stroy the hopes of the world. And thus, upon the hypothe- 
sis of the Baptists, the silence of the Scriptures implies the 
positive and obligatory continuation of the rights of infants 
to church membership, and consequently to baptism. 

The whole Bible, embracing both the Old and the New 
Testaments, comprehends the will of God in Christ Jesus, 



THE SILENCE OF SCRIPTURE. 303 



and contains an account of the final and complete constitu- 
tion of his church. The Old Testament explicitly mentions 
children as designated by God himself as members of his 
church; and the New Testament contains no repeal of this 
right. Therefore children cannot be excluded from baptism, 
which is the initiating ordinance of the Christian church, 
without repealing the Old Testamentj and thus mutilating 
the original constitution of the church of God, and violating 
his will revealed in the beginning. Such is the bold mea- 
sure of the Baptists — assault is made in fact by them upon 
the completeness and perfection of the Bible, and the unity 
of the church in all ages.- 

It is replied by Mr. Jewett,* ^^Can silence establish a 
positive institution ? or a blank give us specific and definite 
instructions?^^ We answer, yes; if the silence of Scripture 
be on a subject previously and definitely adjusted : silence 
"establishes" that subject. But we inquire with more pro- 
priety, " Can silence repeal a positive institution, or a blank 
reverse specific and definite instructions" on any subject 
already explained, enjoined, and confirmed upon principles 
complete and immutable — principles always of the same im- 
port, and recognising the same rights — principles which, in 
the nature of things, compose the foundation of the church 
of God? If not, then the silence of the Scriptures — admit- 
ting that they are silent, which we do not — "establishes" 
all the ancient religious privileges of children, connected 
with the original divine constitution of the church, and 
perpetuated through all succeeding ages of time. The 
silence of Scripture is not only to be ascribed to the con- 
tinued force of the unrepealed and unaltered constitution, 
but to the commonness of the thing, as in the history of the 
Old Testament church. According to Dr. Wall, "there is 

' Jewett on Baptism, 3d ed. p. 91. 



304 INFANT BAPTISM. 



sometimes five hundred years together without the mention 
of any child circumcised," which cannot be rationally con- 
sidered as proof that none were circumcised during that time. 
2. The silence of the church supports the title of infants 
to baptism. A change which excluded children from the 
privileges of the church, would have caused a violent and 
universal complaint among Jewish parents and the friends 
of the Jewish religion. Suppose the constitution of the 
United States, which embraces every interest of national 
liberty, should be so modified, in any of its principles or 
doctrines, as to exclude or even omit the rights of children, 
what would be the opposition of parents in the land, and 
the triumph of enemies throughout the world? A remon- 
strance would go up like thunder to Congress from the 
whole length and breadth of the land, and the condemnation 
of the whole civilized world would rest upon us. A civil 
and destructive war doubtless would ensue. To say the 
least, it is inconceivable how such an innovation could be 
permitted in silence. In like manner, suppose the Jews, on 
the manifestation of Christ, with all the convincing and 
satisfactory proofs of his Messiahship before them, had not 
rejected him, but received him as their promised Deliverer, 
as some of them did, with what feelings think you, would 
they have received baptism, and entered the Christian 
church, without their children ? With a mournful conscious- 
ness of the superiority of the Jewish church over the Chris- 
tian in this respect, doubtless they would have so expressed 
their paternal regrets as to make their hostility to the inno- 
vation a matter of history, to be transmitted to succeeding 
times for the information of the church. And as the Jews 
rejected Christianity, had infants been excluded from the 
Christian church, they would have mentioned this repeal act 
as a strong apology for their rejection of Christianity and 
preference for their ancient dispensation of the covenant. 



THE SILENCE OF THE CHURCH. 305 



3. The silence of the enemies of the church is an additional 
proof that the right of infants to church membership was 
never repealed. Had it been repealed, the enemies of the 
new religion would have urged the exclusion of infants as 
a proof of the inferiority of the Christian church to the Jew- 
ish. Especially would Josephus, the most celebrated his- 
torian of the Jews, have noticed this neglect or omission of 
the rights of children, and some pages of his works would 
have been crowded with arguments founded upon this ground, 
to prove the superiority of the Jewish church, and the im- 
perfection of the Christian religion. Had such a testimony 
been left by Josephus, be assured, the opposers of infant 
baptism would long since have republished it a thousand 
times to the world. Why this universal and profound 
silence of Jewish historians and writers, of the whole infidel 
world, and of all the enemies of the Christian church? 
Why the silence of Celsus, Julian, Porphyry, and others 
among the avowed and uncompromising enemies of Chris- 
tianity in its infancy ? The supposed silence of the Supreme 
Legislator, the silence of his church, and the silence of the 
enemies of Christianity, all go to prove, in the most forcible 
manner, that the original institution of the right of children 
to church membership has never been repealed, and there- 
fore their right to initiation into the church, under the Chris- 
tian dispensation, should be formally recognised by baptism, 
the initiating sacrament of the Christian dispensation. In 
view of the original institution — to go no further for proof — 
we see no necessity for specific texts and positive enactments 
to perpetuate the religious privileges of infants under the 
evangelical dispensation. All we might expect to find in 
the New Testament, respecting such privileges, is a recog- 
nition of them, expressed or implied, direct or incidental, 
positive or inferential j and this has already been considero'l 

26* 



306 INFANT BAJ>TISM. 



CHAPTER VII. 

COLLATERAL PROOFS OF INFANT BAPTISM CONTINUED. 

1. If infants were not baptized in the days of the apos- 
tles, upon the opening of the Christian dispensation, what 
was done with the children of Christians? Were they 
circumcised? By no means- — circumcision was abolished 
by the death of Christ. Were they baptized ? You say not. 
Then they were judged unworthy of the religious privileges 
of both dispensations, and like. the surrounding heathen, they 
were excluded from formal association with the church under 
both dispensations. And thus the children were subjected 
to a worse condition than if the parents had never been 
Christians, or the Christian dispensation had never been 
introduced. 

2. It is worthy of observation, that not a single case is 
mentioned in Scripture, in which the descendants of Chris- 
tian parents were baptized in adult years. The Baptists 
take great advantage of those who pay but little attention 
to the circumstances of the commencement of Christianity, 
by stating the examples of adult baptism mentioned in 
Scripture. All these examples were of nations newly con- 
verted to Christianity, and consequently they must have 
preceded the baptism of infants, as in the case of Lydia and 
the jailer : but this fact the Baptists omit altogether, as well 
as that the families of these very persons were baptized also. 
But na instance is mentioned in Scripture of the baptism of 
the descendants of Christians in adult age. Some thirty 
years intervened between the ascension of Christ, and the 



COLLATERAL PROOFS. 307 



arrival of Paul at Rome, and more than sixty years elapsed 
after the introduction of Christianity before the history of 
the New Testament closed. During these periods, we hear 
of not one descendant of Christian families baptized by the 
apostles, which is inferential testimony that they were bap- 
tized in infancy. For of all instances of baptism, it does 
seem that the baptism of adult believers, descended from 
Christian parentage, should be mentioned, especially if bap- 
tism be indispensable as to a peculiar mode, or positively 
instituted as a condition of salvation, or as absolutely invalid 
in infancy. During these periods, two or three generations 
arrived at maturity, and yet of the thousands of children 
born of believing parents, we have not on record an account 
of a single case baptized in adult age. It may be replied, 
and so we have no account of a single case of the baptism 
of children of believing parents. The explanation of this is 
easy. The principal object of the New Testament history 
in referring to baptism in any specific case, is to narrate the 
progress of the gospel among Jews and Gentiles, and not to 
specify the baptism of children whose parents were already 
in the church. Accordingly, all the cases of baptism re- 
corded as above, are those of converts to Christianity. In 
the case of parents already in the apostolic church, the bap- 
tism of their children followed as a matter so well known, 
that it did not require express record, and hence we find no 
account of any such case registered at the time. Thus, it 
may be inferred, that the descendants of believing parents 
were all baptized in infancy, and none remained to be bap- 
tized in manhood, and so no record of the kind is to be 
found. And therefore, from this silence of Scripture con- 
cerning the baptism of adult believers, descended from Chris- 
tian parents, we argue these several things : — 

First. That the mode of baptism is non-essential. 

Secondly. That the con ditioncdity of baptism is unscriptura* , 



308 INFANT BAPTISM. 



Thirdly. That infant baptism is valid; and, 

Fourthly. That, as in the case of these adult believers 
descended from Christian parents, baptism was not repeated, 
so in the present day, it ought not to be repeated in any 
case properly baptized in infancy. The example of ancient 
believers ought to be sufficient to reconcile any, in all subse- 
quent ages, to baptism administered in infancy, and fully 
satisfy the most scrupulous with regard to it. 

3. The history of the Christian church, from the apostolic 
age, irresistibly sustains the divine authority and validity 
of infant baptism. 

We are to regard the early Fathers as credible wit- 
nesses. They had their senses, their memories, oral tra- 
ditions, and written documents, and hence they were qualified 
to bear ample testimony concerning the facts of the pre- 
ceding age, and what occurred before their eyes. They bear 
testimony to the canonical authority of the different books 
of the New Testament, and we implictly receive them as the 
genuine writings of the apostles, as the inspiration of Grod, 
and commit the salvation of our souls to their light. But 
these Fathers were better qualified to bear testimony to the 
public and universal practice of infant baptism, since it was 
a subject daily presented to their immediate observation. 
We are not in search of their opinions, but their testimony 
to the fact of infant baptism. Tertullian had opinions of 
infant baptism different from the rest of the Fathers, it is 
true, but he bore testimony, nevertheless, in common with 
the rest of the Fathers, in favor of the fact of infant bap- 
tism. And observe, whenever they mention the subject of 
infant baptism, they do it, not to discuss, or even question 
its validity and authority, but they introduce it incidentally, 
to sustain and illustrate other questions at issue at the time 
— its divine authority is always taken for granted — and 



COLLATERAL PROOFS. 309 



never is it asserted to be the invention of man or the insti- 
tution of councils. 

First, Justin Martyr. In his first apology to the Emperor 
Antoninus Pius, he says, " Several persons among us, of sixty 
and seventy years old, of both sexes, who were made disci- 
ples — ^[xa{trireu&r^<ja'^, ematheteuthesan — to Christ, in or from 
their childhood, do continue uncorrupted.^' Justin wrote 
but nineti/ years after St. Matthew, who, as is supposed by 
Jones, Wetstein, Dr. Owen, and Richard "Watson, wrote his 
Gospel for the use of the Hebrew believers, in their own 
tongue, about Jive years after the ascension of Christ, that 
is, A. D. 41. Consequently, they who were seventy years old 
in the time of Justin, must have been made disciples to 
Christ in their childhood, in the midst of the apostles' times, 
within twenty -jive years after the ascension of Christ, twenty 
years after St. Matthew wrote, in the very year in which 
St. Mark wrote, three years before St. Luke wrote, and forty 
years before the death of St. John. And as there was no 
other way of making disciples to Christ from infancy but 
by baptism, these persons must have been baptized in their 
infancy, during the very days of the apostles, and jprohahly 
hy the apostles themselves, at least with their approval, which 
is the same thing. This testimony is conclusive. 

Secondly, Iren^us. He was born A. D. 97, three years 
before the death of St. John ; was a disciple of Polycarp, 
who was a disciple of St. John ; lived between thirty and forty 
years after Justin Martyr, and between sixty and seventy 
years after the apostles. He says : ^' The church learned 

FROM THE APOSTLES tO haptize CHILDREN." And in his 

book against heretics he writes : ^' He (Jesus Christ) came 
to save all persons by himself, all I say, who are regenerated 
by him unto God, infants and little ones and children, 
and young men and old men.'' It is to be observed, that 
this writer is very remarkable for the common use of the 



310 INFANT BAPTISM. 



term regeneration for haptiam — what else could he mean in 
the case of '^infants, little ones, and children?" And thus 
bj substituting baptism for regeneration, we find his testi- 
mony as strong as that of Justin in favor of the apostolic 
authority of infant baptism. 

Thirdly, Tertullian. He was born about forty-five 
years after the apostles' days, and wrote on the subject of 
baptism late in the second century, within a hundred and 
fifty years after the churches were planted by the apostles. 
He had what might be called, at that time, singular views 
of baptism, which led him to think its delay ^^more useful," 
in the case of infants and certain adults. But he speaks of 
the baptism of children as the common jpractice, and never 
writes one word against its lawfulness, nor even expresses a 
clouht of its apostolic origin. Hear him: ^^Grive to them 
who ash thee, but children cannot ask; do not forbid them 
to come: therefore let them stay till they can come: let 
them come when they are grown up — ^when they understand 
— when they are instructed whither it is they are about to 
come: let them be made Christians when they can know 
Christ." 

In the first place, this quotation from Tertullian is posi- 
tive proof that infant baptism existed at the time as the 
practice of the church, or why should Tertullian have written 
against it in this manner ? And so Tertullian himself is a 
witness to the fact that infant baptism existed at this early 
age of the church. Secondly, "Do not forbid them to 
come:" if Tertullian refers to the language of Christ, it 
does not imply that children ought not to be " brought" to 
Christ; for Christ himself rehuked his disciples, who, like 
Tertullian, thought they were too young to receive his bless- 
ing, and commanded that, though they could not ^^come" 
themselves, they should be "brought" to him. If Tertullian 
employ this passage of Scripture against infant baptism, or 



TERTULLIAN. 311 



as in any way referring to it, then the question is settled at 
once by Christ against Tertullian, for he says, ^^ Suffer little 
children to come unto me, and forbid them not,'' — and he 
^'took them up in his arms, and blessed them,^' though they 
could neither ^^ash," nor ^^come,^' nor ^^ understand'' Christ. 
Thirdly, I repeat, we are to distinguish between the testi- 
mony of the Fathers io facts, and their opinions respecting 
facts. Their testimony we are bound to receive; their 
opinions we can reject or receive according as we have good 
ground to believe them true or false. Tertullian maintained 
that baptism washed away all previous sin, whether actual 
or original, and hence the longer baptism was delayed, the 
better it would be, in his opinion, for the subject, unless 
there was immediate danger of death, since all sins, com- 
mitted after baptism, could not be washed away by it : and 
thus he included all unmarried persons of both sexes, virgins 
and widows, in the prohibition with infants, except, as above, 
those cases in danger of death. Entertaining such views, 
no wonder he should consider the delay of baptism in the 
case of infants desirable, and should attempt to support it 
from the Scriptures.* 

But the force of this objection to infant baptism is de- 
stroyed by the following considerations: — On the same 
ground, no one should be baptized till he come to die. Be- 
sides, the objection is founded upon an erroneous view of 
the nature and design of baptism. Baptism is not the 
condition of forgiveness of sins, ^^ actual and original,'' but 



1 Such was the influence of Tertullian, that we need not be surprised 
to find, for more than a century after his age, many distinguished con- 
verts, and among them Constantine, postponing their baptism till a late 
period in life. But this fact is to be ascribed to the erroneous views 
entertained of baptism by all such persons, and not to any diflference of 
opinion that existed at this time with regard to the apostolic origin and 
prevalence of infant baptism. 



312 INFANT BAPTISM. 



imposes upon the subject the solemn obligation to refrain 
from sinning through all future life. Fourthly, if the 
advice of Tertullian to delay infant baptism, proves that 
infants were not baptized in his age, and hence should not 
be baptized in any age, then his advice to delay the baptism 
of unmarried persons and widows, also proves that such 
persons were not baptized in his age, and consequently 
should not be baptized in any age of the -church ! For the 
same reason, in all ages^ baptism ought to be denied to 
adults, since all Christians are liable to temptation. Fifthly, 
why did he not terminate the controversy at once, by boldly 
stating and proving that infant baptism was a novelty, an 
invention of man, unknown to and unauthorized hy the 
apostles? This would have been conclusive. He might 
have appealed to the old men of his time, whose memories 
reached within twenty or thirty years of the apostolic age, 
and who might have furnished him with the requisite in- 
formation, had it been introduced within the time of their 
remembrance. He had before him, also, written histories of 
the times, to which he might have referred for proof. But 
he makes no appeal, not even the remotest allusion, to any 
testimony on the subject. Sixthly, that all doubt may be 
removed on the subject, take the positive testimony of Ori- 
gen, contemporary with Tertullian, who proves incontestably 
that infant baptism was the established usage of the 
church in the DAYS or Tertullian himself, and that it 

HAD BEEN HANDED DOWN FROM THE APOSTLES. To the 

testimony of Origen we shall soon direct attention, but be- 
fore we do, let the reader bear in mind that "these two 
writers lived in different parts of the world; that Tertullian 
wrote the earlier of the two, and being born of heathen 
parents, was converted to Christ in adult age, while Origen 
enjoyed the privilege of descending from Christian parents, 
and of being taught the Christian doctrine from childhood.'' 



ORIGEN. 313 



The boldness of Tertullian at this early period of Chris- 
tianity, it may be observed, is explicable on the ground that 
he was subjected, to a great extent, to the "bondage'' of 
the ancient law, and consequently was unqualified to advo- 
cate the freeness and fulness of the gospel of Christ. The 
opposition of Tertullian rested upon a principle- altogether 
different from the ground of opposition urged by modern 
Baptists, for he allowed the baptism of infants whose lives 
are in danger. And this modified opposition proves that 
infant baptism was the practice of the church at the time; 
for why does he wish it deferred, unless it had been the 

PREVIOUS PRACTICE? 

Fourthly, Origen. He was the most learned of the 
Fathers. He was born between eighty and ninety years 
after St. John's death, was contemporary with Tertullian, 
was baptized in infancy, and was descended from Christian 
parents — his father was a Christian martyr, his grandfather 
and grandmother, and great-grandfather also, were Christians; 
and consequently, he could not be ignorant of the primitive 
rites and customs of the apostolic churches. For the pur- 
pose of acquiring information of our Lord and his doctrine, 
and the constitution, manners, and customs, of the primitive 
churches, he visited the churches planted by the apostles in 
Cappadocia, in Arabia, in Greece, and in Rome; while the 
most of his life was spent in Syria, and in Palestine — the 
very countries in which the first churches were planted by 
the apostles: consequently, he must have been well ac- 
quainted with the rites and customs of the apostolic 
churches. And the conclusion of all his researches is: 
" The church received from THE APOSTLES the injunction or 
tradition TO GIVE BAPTISM EVEN TO INFANTS. According 

2 This error of Tertullian, Calvin calls " a preposterous caution ;" and 
says, "it is frequently censured in the writings of the ancient bishops." 
Institutes, b. 4, c. 15, sec. 3. 

27 



314 INFANT BAPTISM. 



to the saying of our Lord concerning infants — and thou wast 
an infant when thou wast baptized — ^ their angels do always 
behold the face of my Father who is in heaven/ " This 
is his testimony to infant baptism — and that its credibility 
may be established, consider more fully his own genealogy, 
and that of certain ^^ faithful men'' to whom Timothy gave 
charge, at forty years only. As Origen's father was mar- 
tyred, he -is to be estimated at twenty-five years only, and 
thiis it will appear that the testimony of Paul, Timothy, and 
Timothy's ^^ faithful men," and of ^'others" also instructed 
by them, extends to the year 180. Now Origen was born 
in the year 185. Subtract from this, twenty-five years for 
his father; forty years for his grandfather; and forty years 
also for his great-grandfather, and we are brought to the 
year 80 — a period within twelve years of the death of Mark 
the Evangelist, which occurred at Alexandria "from the 
wounds his enemies inflicted as they were repeating their 
torments after a night of imprisonment." Mark knew per- 
fectly well the practices of the apostles, for he had been 
"sent by Peter to advance the cause of Christ in Egypt," 
and during his life, he would select his "faithful men" to 
transmit at his death instructions of apostolic authority. 
John survived precisely tiuenty years, that is, he died A. D. 
100. Thus, there was Timothy, or Titus, or some of their 
"faithful men" contemporaneous with the Origen family for 
nearly a hundred years. Now how was it possible that the 
practice of the primitive church at this early age could be 
forgotten, or corrupted, or perverted, or abused, or counter- 
acted, or compromitted by the ingenuity of man, or the 
stratagem of hell ? Is it at all credible, that rites and cere- 
monies absolutely new, and diametrically opposed to aposto- 
lic injunctions, could be so soon superadded to apostolic 
practices and customs, and be so quietly established and in- 
sensibly identified with them, that not one word of opposition 



ORIGEN. 315 



sliould be heard from any quarter? Where was Timothy, 
or some one of his "faithful men?" And where was 
Origen? And what does he say of the Christian obser- 
vances in his own family, in his father's, in his grandfather's, 
and his great-grandfather's, as derived immediately from 
Mark the Evangelist ? He says, " The church received FROM 

THE APOSTLES THE INJUNCTION OR TRADITION TO GIVE 

BAPTISM EVEN TO INFANTS.'' Now why did not some anti- 
pgedobaptist — if any existed at the time — speak out, and say, 
Origen, you are of Christian descent — you have travelled 
much in countries where the primitive churches were planted 
— and YOU know that infant baptism is not of apostolic 
origin — you know you were baptized in adult age — you hnow 
you were baptized by immersion? These bold addresses 
would have silenced Origen effectually, had not infant baptism 
been of apostolic origin. But not one word of appeal of this 
kind — ^not one : on the contrary, no one, not even TertuUian 
himself, expresses a doubt of the apostolic origin and authority 
of infant baptism, and speaks of it as the common practice. 
Such testimony, without opposition from TertuUian, or any 
one else, we regard as sufficient to establish firmly and satis- 
factorily our belief in any fact of history supposed to have 
occurred one hundred years before. ^ Origen not only attests 
to the validity, but the obligation of infant baptism : " The 
church received from the ajpostles the injunction to give bap- 
tism to infants" 

3 "Nor can this testimony of Origen be regarded as an interpolation 
made by, his translators. If there were found in these translations of 
Origen but one or two places, and those in Rufinus alone, that did speak 
of infant baptism, there might have been suspicions of their being inter- 
polations. But when there are so many of them, brought in on several 
occasions, in translations made by several men, who Acere of several par- 
ties, and enemies to one another, (as St. Hierome and Rufinus were,) and 
upon no tentation, (for it is certain that in their time there was no dis- 
pute about infant baptism,) that they should be all without any reason 



316 INFANT BAPTISM. 



Fifthly. Cyprian. He was contemporary with Origen, and 
a member of the council of sixty-six bishops held at Carthage 
150 years from the age of the apostles. In answer to a 
question proposed by Fidus, a country pastor, whether it 
would not be better to delay the baptism of infants till the 
eighth day after their birth, than to baptize them before 
that time, the council addressed to him the following letter : 

^^ Cyprian, and others of the college of bishops who were 
present, sixty-six in number, to Fidus our brother, greeting ; 

"We read your letter, most dear brother,, &c. 

^^So far as it pertains to the case of infants, whom you 
think ought not to be baptized within the second or third 
day ffom their birth; and that the ancient law of circum- 
cision should be observed, so that none should be baptized 
and sanctified before the eighth day after birth : it seemed 

TO ALL IN OUR COUNCIL FAR OTHERWISE. For as tO what 

you proposed to be done, there was not one of your opinion. 
But on the contrary, it was our unanimous decision that 
the grace and mercy of God should not be denied to any as 
soon as born." ^ This ecclesiastical decision is mora import- 
ant than the judgment or opinion of a single private Father: 
the decision of the general council determines the common 
practice of the whole church. . The question before the coun- 
cil was not respecting the lawfulness of infant baptism — that 
was admitted — but concerning the time of administering it 
— and the time is determined without a dissenting voice. 
Sixthly. Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, Jerome, 

forged, is absurd to think." Wall, vol. i. 119, 120. And Wall adds, 
"these translators lived not much more than one hundred years after 
Origen's time ; and the Christians then must know whether infants had 
been used to be baptized in Origen's time or not: the very tradition from 
father to son must have carried a memory of it for so short a time. And 
then, for them to make Origen speak of a thing which all the world knew 
was not in use in his time, must have made them ridiculous." 
4 Cyprian, Epist., 66. 



AMBROSE, AUGUSTINE, ETC. 317 



Optatus, GrREGORY Nazianzen. ThesG Fathers and 
writers wrote in the fourth century. 

Ambrose : " The baptism of infants had been the practice 
of the apostles and of the church till his time.'' 

Augustine: He mentions the baptism of infants as that 
which ^Hhe whole church practises." ^^ It was not instituted 
by any council^ but was always in use." He adds: ^^He 
does not remember ever to have heard of any, whether catho- 
lic or heretic, who maintained that baptism ought to be 
denied to infants — this the church has always maintained.^' * 

Chrysostom ; In the latter part of the fourth, or the begin- 
ning of the fifth century, he says : " The catholic church 
everywhere declared that infants should be baptized." 

Jerome: Incidentally referring to the subject of infant 
baptism, he thus bears testimony: "Unless you suppose 
the children of Christians if they do not receive baptism are 
themselves accountable for the sin, and the wickedness not 
imputed to those who would not give it to them." Here he 
declares that infant baptism was the practice of the church 
in his time, and that it is the sin of the parents to neglect it. 

Optatus: He was bishop of Milevium, and also refers to 
infant baptism incidentally, as the uiiiversal practice of the 
church. Referring to baptism, he exclaims, " Oh what a 
garment is this, that is always one and innumerable, that 
decently fits ALL AGES, and all shapes! It is neither too big 
for INEANTS, nor too little for men, and without any altera- 
tion fits women." 

Gregory Nazianzen : He was a celebrated theological and 
polemical writer of the foui'th century — he thus writes: 

5 Augustine had 300 years to look back to apostolic times, and had 
before him writings and records which are now lost to us : but a small 
proportion of early evidence of apostolic practices has survived the ruins 
of time, and remains upon the pages of secular and ecclesiastical history 
in the possession of the church. 

27* 



31^ INFANT BAPTISM. 



^^ Have you an infant f Let not wickedness have the ad- 
vantage of him: from his INFANCY let him he sanctified; 
from the cradle let him he consecrated hy the Sjpirit. You 
fear the seal on account of the weakness of nature : how 
faint-hearted a mother ^ and how little faith! Hannah, 
even hefore Samuel was horn, promised him to God, and 
consecrated him immediately after his hirth, and hrought 
him up in the priestly dress, not fearing any human in- 
firmity, hut trusting in God J" And again, he supposes the 
following question proposed to him respecting infant bap- 
tism, which he answers : " What say you as concerning those 
who are as yet infants, and are not sensihle of its loss or 
of its 'grace/ shall we haptize them too? By all means, 
if in any danger make it requisite. For it is hetter that 
they he SANCTIFED [baptized] without their own sense of it, 
than that they should die unsealed and uninitiated/* 

Seventhly. Pelagius. While Pelagius is not to be regard- 
ed as one of the Fathers, yet his testimony in favor of infant 
baptism is rendered most important by the circumstances 
under which it was given. He was a contemporary and an- 
tagonist of Augustine in the field of polemic theology. The 
celebrated controversy on original sin occurred about 300 years 
after the apostolic age, between Pelagius and Celestius on 
the one side, and Augustine and the whole church with him 
on the other. Pelagius denied the doctrine of original sin. 
The argument used by Augustine was the prevailing practice 
of infant haptism : " If not to shadow forth the inward wash- 
ing to which the infant was entitled, what was its design ?" 
This greatly embarrassed Pelagius. But why did he not 
set aside the argument of Augustine at once, by showing 
that infant haptism was a human invention, a novelty? 
With all his learning and subtlety, he was able to do this, 
had it been possible. But no effort of this kind is made. 
On the contrary, he adopts other measures to explain and 



PELAGIUS AND CELESTIUS. 319 



justify the practice oi infant baptism. Such as ^'infants 
had actual sins that needed forgiveness;" or, '^ that they had 
pre-existed, and baptism wag for sins done in a former state f 
or, ^Hhat they were initiated into a church in which sins 
were forgiven :" all of which were easily refuted. And so 
strong was the temptation to deny the validity of infant bap- 
tism, that some of his enemies affirmed that he denied the 
right of infants to baptism ; whereupon Pelagius exclaimed : 
'^Men slander me, as if I denied the sacrament of baptism 

to in/ants. I- NEVER HEARD OF ANY ONE, EVEN THE MOST 

IMPIOUS HERETIC, who asserted that in/ants are not to he 
haptizedP The testimony of Pelagius is the stronger, when 
we consider that the doctrine of infant baptism furnished 
an unanswerable argument against his heretical opinions." 
Besides, further testimony in favor of infant baptism, may 
be drawn from his creed : '■'' We hold one baptism, which we 
say ought to be administered with the same sacramental 
words to INFANTS as it is to all elder persons." "^ 

Celestius, associated with him in this great controversy, 
makes also the following confession : " We own that infants 
ought, according to the rule of the UNIVERSAL CHURCH, and 
according to the SENTENCE OE THE GOSPEL, to be baptized,^' 
&c.^ That the history of the apostolic times might be trans- 

^ The doctrine of Pelagius was pronounced heretical j and thus, by the 
judgment of the ancient church, the right of infants to baptism was 
justified on the ground of original sin. 

7 Wall, vol. i. 440. 

8 Respecting these men, Wall observes, " They lived iq the prime of 
their age at Rome, a place to which all the people of the world had then 
a resort. They were both some time at Carthage in Africa. Then the 
one settled at Jerusalem, and the other travelled through all the noted 
Greek and Eastern churches in Europe and Asia. It is impossible there 
should have been any churches that had any singular practice in this 
matter, but they must have heard of them. So that one may fairly con- 
clude, that there was not at this time, nor in the memory of the men of 



320 INFANT BAPTISM. 



mitted unimpaired to the succeeding ages of tlie church, it 
was the care of the apostles 'Ho commit to faithful men, 
able to teach others also,^^ ^ this solemn and important charge. 
These "faithful men*^ were instructed by the apostles them- 
selves. The Apostles Jude and Thomas, and the Evangelist 
Luke, all lived beyond the year 70 A. D. Timothy and 
Titus a few years longer. John died A. D. 100, or a little 
after. Polycarp, the friend and disciple of St. John, lived 
till about sixty-five years after the death of St. John. Ter- 
tuUian lived twenty -two years before Polycarp' s death; Jus- 
tin Martyr lived and died before Polycarp' s death; and 
Irenaeus, the friend and disciple of Polycarp, was born thirty 
years after Polycarp was born, lived thirty-one years after 
his death, and about ninety-six after the death of St. John. 
Origen was born twelve years before the death of Irenaeus, 
and lived sixty-one years after his death, and nine years 
after the council at Carthage was held. Now Origen fre- 
quently appeals to the writings of Irenaeus on the subject 
of infant baptism, and says, "It Was handed down from 
THE APOSTLES.^' How is it possible that the practice of in- 
fant baptism at this age, immediately after the death of the 
apostles, could become universal in the church, unless it was 
of apostolic origin and authority ? Where were the ^^ faith- 
ful men V Who were the innovators ? 

To continue : — We have seen the same testimony in favor 
of infant baptism, transmitted from the time of Origen and 
Cyprian, down through Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, 
Jerome, Optatus, Grregory Nazianzen, to the controversy be- 

ihis time, any Christian society that denied baptism to infants." And 
Wall adds on the same page, "This cuts off at once all the pretences 
which some anti-psedobaptists would raise from certain probabilities, 
that the Novatians, or Donatists, or the British Church of those times, or 
any other whom Pelagius must needs know, did deny it." Vol. iv. 467. 
9 2 Tim. ii. 2. 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 321 



tween Pelagius and Augustine — and we have now arrived at 
the fifth century of the Christian era. 

Not to multiply testimonies any further, take the sum of 
the whole matter as it is made out by Wall in his great work 
on infant baptism : — '•^For the first four hundred years of 
the Christian era, there appeared only one man, TertuUian, 
who advised the delay of infant baptism, in some cases, and 
one Gregory, that did perhaps practise such delay in the case 
of his children; hut no society of men so thinking, or so 
practising, nor any one man saying it was unlawful to bap- 
tize infants : and that for the next seven hundred years, there 
is not so much as one man to be found, that either spoke for, 
or practised any such delay, BUT ALL TO THE CONTRARY.^^ ^° 
The weight of these testimonies is overwhelming. Mr. 
TombeS; an English writer, in reply to Mr. Marshall, who 
had produced a great many Fathers in proof of infant bap- 
tism, observes, ^^It is a wonder to me, that if it were so 
manifest as you speak, you should find nothing in Eusebius 
for it, nor in Ignatius, nor in Clemens Alexandrinus, nor in 
Athanasius, nor in Epiphanius.'' "Wall replies, " This objec- 
tion is weak. For there is no age of the church in which one 
may not find many books that say nothing of that matter; 
because they treat of subjects on which they have no occasion 
to speak of that. Ignatius wrote nothing but a few letters 
to the neighboring churches, to exhort them to constancy in 
that time of persecution. Athanasius was wholly taken up 
about the Trinity. Cleniens Alexandrinus with the heathen 
philosophers; (yet in him we have now found a place where 
he in a transient and cursory way mentions the apostles bap- 
tizing infants.) Eusebius writes the chronicles of the suc- 
cession of kings, emperors, bishops, and the state of the 
church, either flouiishing or persecuted, under each of 

10 Vol. ii. 501. 



322 INFANT BAPTISM. 



them."" And as to EpiphaniuS; it may be added, who 
died after the year 400, his silence is to be regarded as an 
argument in favor of infant baptism, since the Baptists 
themselves admit that infant baptism had been prevalent in 
the church from the latter part of the second, or beginning 
of the third century. 

From what we have now written, the reader is prepared 
to see the truth of the saying of Calvin : "What they circu- 
late among the uninformed multitude, that after the resur- 
rection of Christ, a long series of years passed, in which 
infant baptism was unknown, is shamefully contrary to 
truth; for there is no ancient writer who does not refer its 
origin as a matter of CERTAINTY TO THE AGE OF THE 

APOSTLES." " 

4. The symbols used by Christians in the first centuries 
prove conclusively that infant baptism was the practice of 
the church in those centuries. 

In the earliest ages of Christianity, we find the following 
inscription, with the symbols of a fishy an anchor j and a 
dove : 

^^A FAITHFUL, descended from ancestors who also were 
faithful J here lies Zosimus : he lived two years, one month, 
and twenty -five daysJ^ 

The following, with the symbol of a dove, is an inscription 
of the same period: 

^^Achillia, NEWLY baptized, is buried here; she died at 
the age of one year and five months." 

Again : 

" Sacred to the great Grod. Leopardus rests here in peace 
with holy spirits. HAVING received baptism, he went to 
the blessed innocents. This was placed by his parents, with 
whom he lived seven years and seven months." 

" Vol. iv. 511, 512 »2 insts. b. 4, c. 16, sec. 8. 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 323 



Take otlier examples from ancient existing memorials : 

^^ Rujillo, NEWLY BAPTZED, wTio lived two years and forty 
days Quintillian the father places this to the memory of 
his son who sleeps in the peace of Christ." 

" To Domitiusj an innocent, newly baptized, who lived 
three years and thirty days." 

"Valerius Decentius the father places this to his son, 
newly baptized, who lived three yearsj ten months, and 
fifteen days." 

<* To PisentuSj an innocent soul who lived one year, eight 
months, and thirteen days. Newly baptized: buried in 
the ides of Septemher in peace." 

" To Leoni: newly baptized, who lived six years, eight 
months, and eleven days. He reposed the sixth of the nones 
of July, Philippus and Sallia being consuls," A. D. 348. 

" To Aristus, who lived eight years; newly baptized, 
he went off the first of the nones of June : Timasius and 
Prom^torus being consuls," A. D. 389. 

" Flavia Jovina, who lived three years and thirty-tioo days : 
NEWLY baptized : deposited in peace, the eleventh of the 
calends of October," A. D. 367. 

These will suffice : the cemetery of the early church no 
doubt contains hundreds of thousands of graves not marked 
by a single inscription, and those that survive the ruins of 
centuries are comparatively very few. 

5. The continued practice of infant baptism by the Chris- 
tian church, from the days of the apostles to the present 
time, is a strong collateral proof of its apostolic origin and 
validity. 

Advocates for exclusive immersion and opponents of in- 
fant baptism say that their views are so plainly set forth in 
the Scriptures, that they need no arguments to make them 
clearer, and hence do not trouble themselves much on the 
subject. Plain, indeed I Why then have they escaped the 



324 INFANT BAPTISM. 



observation of the Christian church for so long a time ? Are 
not eighteen hundred years time enough to open the eyes of 
the church on the subject of baptism ? Indeed, is not this 
period of time sufficient to confirm the church in its views 
on this subject? Without doubt, the continued, unchanged 
opinion of the church during all this time, is proof enough 
of the authenticity of the doctrine revealed, especially when 
it is considered, that so much talent and piety, for so long a 
succession of years, and through so much controversial strife, 
during the last few centuries, have been exercised in the in- 
vestigation. I see no alternative, but that the views of the 
paedobaptists on this subject are ascribable to ignorance, or 
dislionesty — or that they are scriptural and sound. That 
their views on the subject of infant baptism are to be ascribed 
to ignorance, is refuted by their talent and profound erudi- 
tion : that they are dishonest, is disproved by their piety 
and good works of every description; and therefore, that 
their views are scriptural and sound is sustained both by 
their talents and piety. We shall refer to this subject again, 
in another part of this work. These are the collateral proofs. 

We now sum up the proofs adduced in support of infant 
baptism as a Divine institution of perpetual obligation. 
First, the ground of infant salvation, is the ground of infant 
baptism ; secondly, infants have been included under all the 
dispensations of the covenant of grace ; thirdly, the identity 
of the church under all the dispensations of the covenant of 
grace in all time ; fourthly, the absence of repeal or modifi- 
cation of the original gracious covenant made with man re- 
specting children; fifthly, the impossibility of fully and 
satisfactorily explaining many passages of Scripture but in 
harmony with the doctrine ; sixthly, the proper discrimina- 
tion between the terms oikos and oikia, and the specific 
reference of oikos to children, little ones, babes and SUCK- 



SUMMARY. 325 



LINGS j seventhly, the history of the Christian church since 
the days of the apostles; eighthly, the force of the symbols 
of early Christianity; and ninthly, the judgment, talent, 
and piety of the whole Christian church in the present day — 
the Baptists excepted, 



28 



PAET IV. 



CHAPTER I. 

"infant baptism is an innovation." 

If this objection cannot be sustained by its friends, infant 
baptism must be received as a divine institution. Let us 
commence investigation at the time when it is stated this 
innovation was made. We shall quote the statements and 
admissions of Baptist authors. 

Mr. Judson supposes that it "commenced in the latter 
PART of the second century."^ "No mention is made of 
infant baptism in the second century, unless it be just at its 
close." Chapin's letters, p. 99. "It appears that infant 
baptism was not practised, until about the close of the se- 
cond century." Pendleton on Baptism and Communion, p. 
21. "No evidence of infant baptism, before the latter end 
of the second, or the beginning of the third century." Bap- 
tist Library, 3 vols, in 1, p. 10. Mr. Broaddus, an elder 
in the Baptist church, in a letter addressed to "Slicer on 
Baptism," says, ''Although the baptism of infants was in- 
vented as early as the CLOSE of the SECOND CENTURY," &c. ^ 
Mr. Grale himself admits that "the baptism of infants does 
not appear to have been practised till about the latter end 



• Judson on Baptism, p. 79. ^ giicer on Baptism, p. 88. 

326 



327 

of the SECOND century/^ 3 That is, lie admits that infant 
baptism was practised by the church in the time Irenaeus 
wrote, which was about the year 180 — and thus, Mr. dale 
himself concedes that infant baptism was the practice of the 
church within eighty years of the apostolic age, for John 
died, A.D. 100. Mr. Alexander Campbell also admits that 
infant baptism is a little more than 1500 years old. "That 
infant baptism," says he, "is of great antiquity, while in- 
fant sprinkling is of modern origin, we cheerfully admit. 
We have no objection to admit that infant baptism is 1500 
years old, or perhaps a few years older." * In the first 
place, these admissions silence for ever the oft-repeated 
declaration, that " infant baptism is a relic of Popery," since 
popery did not rise till several hundred years afterward. 
Mr. Robert Robinson, the Baptist historian, instead of 
showing that infant baptism was a subject of abuse amid the 
corruptions of the Romish Church, which is a fact, ascribes 
the origin of infant baptism to those corruptions, though, 
according to the above admissions, its origin dates several 
centuries earlier. This inconsistency, between Mr. Robinson 
and more modern Baptist writers, must be palpable to the 
most cursory reader. In the second place, by the admissions 
above, we are brought within a very few years of the aposto- 
lic age; and it is incredible, that at this time, infant baptism, 
as a corruption, without opposition and historic evidence, 
could have crept into the church. And here the reader will 
be surprised to hear Mr. Gale himself admitting: "I will 
grant it is probable, that what all or most of the church 
practised immediately after the apostles' times, had been 
appointed or practised by the apostles themselves; for it is 
hardly to be imagined that any considerable body of these 
ancient Christians, and much less that the whole, should so 

3 Wall, vol. iv, 322. ^ Debate with McCalla, pub. 1824, p. 365. 



828 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



deviate from the customs and injunctions of their venerable 
founders, whose authority they held so sacred. Now opi- 
nions or practices are usually introduced hy degrees^ and 
NOT WITHOUT OPPOSITION. Therefore, in regard to bap- 
tism, a thing of such universal concern, and daily practice, 
I allow it to be very probable tliat the pHmitive churches 
KEPT TO THE APOSTOLIC PATTERN. / verity helieve that 
the primitive church maintained^ in this CASE, AN EXACT 

CONFORMITY TO THE PRACTICE OF THE APOSTLES, which, 
doubtless, AGREED ENTIRELY WITH CHRISTIAN INSTITU- 
TIONS.^^ ^ Established so near the times of the apostles, in 
direct opposition to their authority, when such a thing was 
not then known or thought of in all the churches then ex- 
isting! What, all Christendom carried away blindly and 
insensibly, at this early age, by an absurd and novel inno- 
vation ! Especially too, when the church soon became divid- 
ed into sects, ever watchful, and careful to prevent inno- 
vation ! Political and ecclesiastical changes are never made 
without warm and protracted debates, and some account of 
the discussion and the results, if important, is always pre- 
served. This is the fact respecting the various disputes and 
decisions of many councils of the church; and in like man- 
ner, had infant baptism been an innovation, it would have 
passed under review before the whole Christian world, and 
some council would have transmitted, through the records 
of the church, some account of the circumstances and the 
occasion. Consider the character of the discussions of the 
age. Christendom resounds with strife. The press dissemi- 
nates debates, in books, pamphlets, ^nd periodicals, to the 
four winds of heaven — the pulpit thunders from one end of 
the church to the other — the historian inscribes some ac- 
count of every important innovation upon the pages of the 



J 



5 Gale's Reflections on Wall, p. 



329 

times — and succeeding ages are made acquainted with the 
past. But not one stroke of the pen — not one whisper — not 
the least intimation — no controversy — -no effort to suppress 
the error — no decision of councils, general or provincial, 
against it — no variety of sects — no diversity of opinions on 
the subject — not one iota of information — in all the pasty 
from any source, respecting the time, circumstances, and 
place, of this supposed innovation ! About 300 years after 
the apostolic age, the celebrated controversy, already referred 
to, between Augustine and Pelagius, on the doctrine of ori- 
ginal sin, arose. The Pelagian heresy was the denial of the 
doctrine of original sin. To refute this heresy, Augustine 
inquires, " Why are children baptized for the remission of 
sins, if they have none?^' That is, Augustine directs the 
mind of his antagonist to the ordinance and design of infant 
baptism, as a proof that children are depraved, and hence 
should be baptized, that their title to the purifying opera- 
tions of the Holy Ghost may be set forth in the cases of all 
such as die in infancy. Now if infant baptism had been an 
innovation of man, and not a divine institution, Pelagius, , 
with all his skill and learning, would immediately have 
proved the fact, and thus destroyed the force of the argu- 
ment drawn from the established practice of infant baptism. 
But so far from this, Pelagius admits its apostolic origin 
and authority; and so embarrassed was he by its force, that 
he and his party resorted, as we have seen, to a variety of 
futile evasions to explain the design of infant baptism. 
How easy to have spared themselves all this trouble and 
inconsistency, by positively denying, and clearly disproving, 
the. validity of the sacred rite in its application to infants ! 
The learned Dr. Grill, a Baptist, affirms that infant baptism 
became generally prevalent in the fourth century. About 
this very time, the controversy between Augustine and Pe- 
lagius was carried on with great warmth on both sides — and 

28* 



830 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERjfcA,- 



yet Pelagius takes no notice of a fact, if it existed, that 
would have given him great advantage in the discussion! 
Yea, more : it is affirmed that this innovation was made in 
the latter part of the second century. And how does it 
happen, that Pelagius, and all the Fathers, about a hundred 
years afterward,- never heard of it, nor spoke of it — espe- 
cially when it would have been the very information they 
needed to obtain a decisive victory over their antagonists ? 

Mr. Jewett, in his little book on baptism, says : " While 
from the earliest period, the baptism of believers appears on 
every page of history, her voice is dumb respecting infant 
baptism for two hundred years after Christ." ^ And what 
of that ? Does this prove that infant baptism is a human 
invention ? Not at all. In the present day, we never pub- 
lish the number of infants baptized, but notice only the 
number of adults baptized. And yet it is a sufficient refu- 
tation of the objection of Mr. Jewett, when he admits on 
the very next page that proselyte hajptism was known among 
the Jews A. D. 70, and of course, the baptism of children 
was also known, seventy instead of two hundred years after 
Christ. 

Infant baptism — a relic of Popery, an innovation of man — 
made out at the close of the second century ! And where 
icas the Baptist Church all this time? While one is read- 
ing Mr. Eobinson's long History of Baptism, he looks in vain 
for the history of the Baptist Church at this early period. 
All Christendom, FOR CENTURIES, he proves himself, were 
haptized in infancy, and of course, THE Baptist Church 

WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE ALL THIS TIME. He adduces 

various authorities in proof of the prevalence of infant bap- 
tism in the early ages, hut not one for the existence of the 
Baptist Church — and all his explanations of the origin of 

6 Third ed. p. 89. 



"infant baptism an innovation." 331 



infant baptism are nothing more than mere surmises, or the 
vaguest suppositions, or assertions without a particle of 
proof to sustain them. Whose voice is heard against it ? 
Tertullian's ? But he allowed baptism to infants about to die, 
and therefore he was no Baptist, but an advocate for infant 
baptism. The Baptists date the origin of their church at 
the time of the dispensation of John the Baptist, and run 
down an imaginary line of their perpetuated existence to 
the present time. Now tell me, if the vast multitudes bap- 
tized by John, by the disciples of Christ, with those forming 
the churches planted during the first two hundred years, 
constituted the Baptist Church, how can it be believed, that 
this innovation all at once should obtain an easy, successful, 
and universal sanction, without a whisper of opposition, and 
ail at once the whole Baptist Church be converted into a 
paedobaptist church ? The thing is incredible. 

Suppose at this day, certain traitorous citizens should arise 
and proclaim through our nation, that the children of slaves 
are entitled to the rights of citizenship, and that the law 
securing them this right was not only passed and observed 
when the constitution was first adopted, but that it had been 
observed all along by the nation since the constitution was 
adopted; do you suppose the people at this day would ac- 
knowledge that they had lived in open violation of the fun- 
damental law of the land up to the present time, and at once 
would correct their error by universally admitting the chil- 
dren of slaves to all the rights of citizenship? No, you 
would boldly call this a political revolution, and the whole 
land would rise up in opposition to it. The movers in the 
revolution would be branded as traitors, and such public 
measures would be adopted by the nation, as would transmit 
their names, covered with infamy, to all succeeding ages of 
the American people. Such, in the history of the church, 
would have been the fate of the first friends of infant bap- 



332 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



tism, had it not been a divine institution. But there is 
not one word of history of this kind, as we shall presently 
see, for more than a thousand years after it had been ac- 
knowledged by the church. 

Again : — Suppose our nation to have existed a thousand 
years, and all this time the right of fveeborn children to all 
the blessings of freedom to have been universally acknow- 
ledged \ and a set of men should arise, and proclaim that 
the right of freeborn children to the blessings of freedom 
was an innovation of the second century of our republic — 
would you not ask for the proof, the record, the legislative 
enactment in the matter, the circumstances, and all that 
was materially connected with the innovation ? Would you 
receive bare assertions and assumjptions as sufficient argu- 
ments — assertions and assumptions, too, as we shall presently 
see, that contain the elements of their own refutation ? You 
would tell them, it is not in the constitution — not in the 
histories of the nation — not in the histories, nor in the con- 
stitutions, nor in the usages of the individual States. And 
how would you regard such a party of men ? From such a 
party, hostile to the dearest interests of your children, would 
you elect a man to the office of president of the United 
States ? or invest him with any authority over the rights of 
your children ? And shall we, in the nineteenth century of 
the Christian era, give the least credence to the declaration, 
that children have no right to association' with the church, 
and that all now in it, of course, are to be excluded from it, 
and in future none are to be admitted, because infant bap- 
tism is an innovation made in the second century ? Such a 
declaration requires nothing less than a miracle to support it. 

By the admission of Mr. Alexander Campbell, we are led 
back fifteen hundred years on our way to the origin of in- 
fant baptism. And I confess, I was not only surprised, but 
highly gratified, when I saw this honest and cheerful ad- 



"infant baptism an innovation." 333 



mission from one of the strongest opposers of infant baptism 
the worH ever saw. I take his admission as equivalent to. 
an acknowledgment that infant baptism is a divine institu- 
tion. "We have no objection to admit/^ says he, "that 
infant baptism is 1500 years old, or perhaps a few years 
older r The only question here is, what period of time is 
embraced in these "few years?'' Three, or three hundred? 
The admission does not definitely determine. Mr. Campbell 
did not say, for he did not know. How did he know that 
infant baptism was only a few years older than 1500 years, 
unless he knew something of the circumstances of its origin ? 
If infant baptism be a human invention of 1500 years' an- 
tiquity, or a little more, why cannot the same mind that 
makes this discovery, also point out exactly the time, place, 
and circumstances of the invention? What was the au- 
thority of this investigator of ecclesiastical history on which 
he admitted the origin of infant baptism? Having no 
knowledge of the time, place, and circumstances of the sup- 
posed invention beyond 1500 years, Mr. Campbell had no 
more right to say that it was only "a few years older," than 
that it was 300 years older — ^and this would bring us at 
once to the days of Christ and his apostles. I see no un- 
fairness then in taking this admission of Mr. Campbell as 
Equivalent to the acknowledgment of the divine origin of 
infant baptism. 

Mr. Robert Robinson, in his History of Baptism,'' says, 
"The baptism of babes first appeared in the most ignorant 
and most impure part of the Catholic world, Africa. It was 
not the offspring of critical learning, or sound philosophy, 
for it sprang up among men destitute of both, nor did any 
one ever take the African fathers for philosophers, or critical 
investigators of the sacred oracles of Grod; and if they be all 

7 Page 177. 



334 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



taken for moral men^ they are overprized, for an eyewitness 
hath characterized African Christians quite otherwise/' 
And why did not Tertullian say this, and thus at once 
justify his views of infant baptism ? Why did not Pelagius, 
in his controversy with Augustine, say it, and thus at once 
refute the objection founded upon infant baptism ? There 
is not one word of authentic proof in favor of the unqualified 
and bold declaration of the Baptist historian. The declara- 
tion is incredible, since the whole pasdobaptist church would 
have discovered the 'truth of it, had it been true, and so 
never have advocated the doctrine of infant baptism. No 
notice of the supposed innovation is upon record. Mr. 
Robinson, it seems, in his history of baptism, has carefully 
searched all the records in his reach on this subject, and it 
is certain, that he furnishes not one word in proof of the 
accuracy of his opinion or surmise. Indeed, this oft-re- 
peated assertion, that infant baptism originated in the cor- 
ruptions of the Romish Church, has been already proved to 
be utterly false ; and upon the showing of Mr. Robinson 
himself, infant baptism was a prevalent practice of the primi- 
tive church long before the origin of the Romish Church. 

But where the admissions of the Baptists are limited, and 
where Mr. Campbell is silent, we have heard the evidence of 
Justin Martyr, Iren^us, Origen, Tertullian, Cy- 
prian, Augustine, Pelagius, Ambrose, and others, 
filling up this interval of a few years, and completing and 
confirming the admissions of the Baptist Church. 

Nay, further, instead of taking you back a little beyond 
1500 years, I have conducted you into the past nearly six 
thousand years, guided by the lamp of Revelation, and re- 
vealed to you all the way the right of children to church 
membership, formally acknowledged under every dispensa- 
tion of grace since the covenant was made with Abraham. 
A.S old as the world is the right of children to share with 



"infant baptism an innovation/' 335 



their parents in the love and mercy of God — and this right 
has continued unrepealed till the present time. 

It is a matter of inquiry, why the Baptists should fix the 
time of this supposed innovation in the latter part of the 
second century, and the answer is easy. The earliest ob- 
jection to infant baptism they find upon ecclesiastical re- 
cords is made by Tertullian — ^which we have already con- 
sidered — and forthwith they conclude, that the innovation 
was made a "little earlier" than Tertullian' s times— that is, 
between the times of the apostles and the age of Tertullian. 
Very well: Tertullian flourished about the year 204, that 
is, about one hundred years after the apostolic age. Now 
Mr. Campbell says, in his debate with McCalla, p. 366, 
"Of forty-four writers, called orthodox, besides a great 
many called heterodox, who lived, and taught, and wrote, 
from the Apostle John's time till the time of Tertullian, not 
one mentions infant baptism." Admit this to be true— 
which we do not— what then? Why, their dlence is posi- 
tive proof that infant baptism was not introduced in their 
times. Por though some of these writers were no doubt 
baptized by the apostles themselves, and were intimate 
with the apostles— though many of them were descended 
from pious parentage— though many of them were men of 
splendid abilities and of extensive and varied information, 
ever watchful and jealous of the truth, and wrote and 
preached much in favor of the pure doctrines of Christ, and 
against error, (for a "great many called heterodox'' existed 
at this time,)— though the orthodox and heterodox parties 
were engaged in fierce controversies on theological subjects 
during this period— though many of the orthodox died mar- 
tyrs to the truth, and thus proved their faithful attachment 
to the cause of Christianity— yet "not one of them mentions 
infaiQt baptism as an innovation"— not one of them raises 
his warning voice in opposition to this supposed innovation. 



336 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



This is incredible, if infant baptism ivas an innovation. It 
is incontestable, that if any of the modern Baptists' way of 
thinking existed at this time, they would have recorded 
their earnest and unqualified opposition to the innovation. 
Where was the Baptist Church at this time ? But this is 
not all. As already stated, we have the positive evidence 
of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, who lived at this 
time, in favor of infant baptism, as an apostolic institution 
and practice. — We shall continue our examination of the 
objection before us in the following chapter. 



CHAPTER 11. 

HISTORY OF OPPOSITION TO INFANT BAPTISM. 

As the history of the time, place, and circumstances of 
the supposed innovation of infant baptism, cannot be shown 
by the Baptists, the divine institution of the sacred rite, 
and its consequent apostolic practice, must be admitted. 
This conclusion is greatly strengthened by the fact, that we 
can clearly show the time, place, and circumstances of oppo- 
sition to infant baptism. Opposition to infant baptism 
originated in the twelfth century, when one Peter de Bruis, 
of Languedoc, amid the papal darkness that overspread Eu- 
rope, arose, and publicly preached that infants ought not to 
he hapiized, because they could not believe, and therefore 
could not be saved. He continued to preach this heresy for 
about twenty years, during which time he gathered about 
him a considerable number of followers, but was finally 
arrested about the year 1144, by papal authority, and burned, 
and his followers dispersed. The followers of Peter de 
Bruis, according to Milner, Wall, and others, ^^ opposed the 



HISTORY OF OPPOSITION. 337 



building of churches, and said that singing was mocking 
Grod/' &c. ; and in regard to infant baptism, they say, 
"Christ, sending his disciples out to preach, says in the 
gospel. Go ye out into all the land, and preach the gospel to 
every creature — ^he that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned. From 
these words of our Saviour, it is plain that none can be 
saved, unless he believe, and is baptized; that is, have both 
Christian faith and baptism. For not one of these, but hoth 
together J do save ! So that infants, though they hy you he 
haptized, yet hy reason of their age, they cannot helieve, are 
not saved." This is the only consistent interpretation of 
the great commission, if faith, in all cases, is necessary to 
baptism and salvation, and is the first public oppo- 
sition TO INFANT BAPTISM UPON RECORD — the followers of 
Grundulphus excepted, who, according to Wall, said, "This 
is our doctrine, to renounce the world, to bridle the lusts of 
the flesh, to maintain ourselves by the labor of our own 
hands, to do violence to no man, to love the brethren. If 
this plan of righteousness be observed, there is no need of 
baptism; if it he neglected, haptism is no avail." 

The doctrine of Peter de Bruis was little known from this 
time till the commencement of the Reformation, when it 
appears, about the year 1521, the sect revived in consider- 
able numbers, "chiefly from Saxony and the adjacent coun- 
tries, headed by one Munzer, Stubner, and Storck, and are 
described by various writers as very fanatical, turhuZent, and 
seditious." According to Mosheim, "they declared war 
against all laws, governments, and magistrates of every kind. 
But this seditious crowd was routed and dispersed without 
much difficulty, by the Elector of Saxony and other princes : 
Munzer was put to death, and his factious followers scattered 
abroad in different places.^' Afterward more timid, yet 
they continued to disseminate their principles, and were 



338 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



called Anahaptists, till, about the year 1533, "a portion of 
them, perhaps more fanatical and seditious than others, 
headed by John Matthison, John Bockhold, a tailor, and 
one Gerard, took the city of Munster, deposed the magis- 
trates, and proclaimed John Bockhold king and legislator 
of their new hierarchy. Munster was taken the next year, 
after a long siege, their New Jerusalem destroyed, as they 
called it, and its mock monarch punished with a most pain- 
ful death. The better and larger portion of them received 
and looked up afterward to Menno, a native of Friesland, as 
their leader, who had formerly been a Popish priest, and 
who, with great zeal and industry, labored among them for 
more than twenty-five years. He drew up a plan of doc- 
trine and discipline, and reduced the scattered sects into 
more moderation and consistency. They began now to be 
called by the name of Mennonites as well as Anabaptists. 
But by continuing to modify still more their tenets, and to 
oppose the names by which they were called, they succeeded 
in obtaining for themselves in after ages the name of Bap- 
tists:"' 

Says Benedict, a Baptist historian, ^^ Under this head — 
the G-erman Anabaptists or Mennonites — I shall include the 
whole family of this people, as described by Mosheim, who 
will be my principal guide in their history from the remote 
depths of antiquity." ^ Then let us hear Mosheim as Bene- 
dict quotes him. "The true origin of that sect which 
acquired the name of anahap)tists by administering the rite 
of baptism to those who came over to their communion, and 
derived that of 3Iennonites from the famous man to whom 
they owe the greatest part of their present felicity, is hid in 
the remote depths of antiquity, and is of consequence ex- 



1 Mosheim, vol. ii. cent. 16tli, part ii. c. 

2 Benedict's Hist of Baptists^ p. 44. 



HISTORY OF OPPOSITION. 339 



tremely difficult to be ascertained. This uncertainty will 
not appear surprising, when it is considered that this sect 
started up all of a sudden in several countries at the same 
point of time, &c. Their progress was rapid ; for in a short 
space of time, their discourses, visions, and predictions ex- 
cited commotions in a great part of Europe, and drew into 
their communion a prodigious multitude, whose ignorance 
rendered them easy victims to the illusions of enthusiasm. 
Some of them maintained, among others, the following 
points of doctrine : that the baptism of infants was an inven- 
tion of the devil; that every Christian was invested with the 
power to preach the gospel, and consequently that the church 
stood in no need of ministers or pastors; that in the king- 
dom of Christ civil magistrates were absolutely useless; and 
that Grod still continued to reveal his will to chosen persons 
by dreams and visions.'^ ^ Such are the opposers of infant 
baptism ! And such the founders of the Baptist Church ! 
But what else does Mosheim say of the anabaptists or Men- 
nonites ? Why, that " it is difficult to determine, with cer- 
tainty the particular spot that gave birth to that seditious 
and pestilential sect of -anabaptists, whose tumultuous and 
desperate attempts were equally pernicious to the cause of 
religion and the civil interests of manhind f' — that "we may 
fix this period soon after the dawn of the Reformation in 
Germany, when Luther arose to set bounds to the ambition 
of Rome;'^ — that "this detestable faction, in 1521, began 
their fanatical works, under the guidance of Munzer, Stub- 
ner, Storck, and other leaders of the same furious com- 
plexion;'' — that "they declared war against all laws, govern- 
ments, and magistrates of every kind;'' — that "a great part 
of this rabble seemed really delirious, and nothing more 
extravagant or more incredible can be imagined than the 

3 Benedict's Hist, of Baptism, p. 45, 46. 



340 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



dreams and visions that were constantly arising in their dis- 
ordered brains/'^ Nor is this all. Mosheim defines the 
extent of the '^remote depths of antiquity." He says, 
further on: ^^The Mennonites are not entirely mistaken 
when they boast of their descent from the Waldenses, Petro- 
brussians, and other ancient sects, which are usually con- 
sidered witnesses of the truth in the times of universal 
darkness and superstition." This must have reference to 
the twelfth- century, since he calls sects that arose at that 
time, "ancient sects." In proof that he intended to go no 
further back than the tenth century, is the undoubted and 
universally admitted fact, that the Petrobrussian sect was, 
as he states, "founded about the year 1110, by Peter De 
Bruis," from whom they derived their name. He fixes the 
rise of the Waldenses some years after. "They were so 
called from their parent and founder Peter Waldus, who 
commenced his ministry about the year 1160." This is the 
meaning of Mosheim. And with these began opposition to 
infant baptism. " Remote depths of antiquity !" Grive 
Mosheim^s remark the utmost latitude — and is this the 
foundation of the Baptist Church? A foundation laid — 
where, by whom, and under what circumstances, nobody 
knows ! Should any system of vital importance be embraced 
upon such vain and flimsy pretensions ? If such pretensions 
be true, the foundation is unknown; if they be false, the 
foundation does not exist. Nor is this all. Respecting 
Menno, the founder of the Mennonites, Mosheim says, "he 
expressed his abhorrence of the licentious tenets which seve- 
ral anabaptists held in relation to the baptism of infants, the 
millennium, &c. : he explained and modified them in such a 
manner, as made them resemble the religious tenets which 
were universally received in the Protestant churches.^' ^ And 

* Mosheim vol. ii. cei^t. 16th, part ii. c. 3. ^ j\^\^^ part ii. c. 3. 



HISTORY OF OPPOSITION. 841 



Wall observes^ ^^One thing Cassander says of this Menno 
that is particular, viz. "that whereas some of these men 
(the Mennonites) had first endeavored to fix the origin of 
infant baptism upon some pope of Rome, Menno had more 
sense : he luas forced to own that it had been in use from the 
ajwstles' times. But he said that the false apostles were the 
authors of it.^^ ^ Some Baptist writers claim descent for the 
Baptist Church from the Waldenses, a body of Christians 
inhabiting the valleys of the Alps, and brought to light in 
the twelfth century. They were generally a pious and ex- 
emplary people — advocated many of the doctrines of the 
Eeformation — and opposed the false pretensions and super- 
stitious additions of the Papal Church. But tIsey did not 
OPPOSE infant baptism: this is the only point that con- 
cerns us, and which we shall now attempt to prove." When 
certain Eomish priests accused them of refusing baptism to 
their children, they denied the charge, but acknqwledged in 
certain instances that they had delayed baptism because 
their own pastors or barbs were abroad in other parts of the 
work of the church, and that hereby the baptism of theii* 
children was often delayed longer than they desired. ^ Their 
own language is, ''Neither is the time or place appointed 
for those who must he haptized; but charity, and the edifi- 
cation of the church and congregation, ought to be the rule 
in this matter ) yet notwithstanding we bring our children 
to be baptized, WHICH THEY OUGHT to do, to whom they 
are most nearly related as their parents, or those whom God 
has inspired with such a charity.'' Wall gives the following 
account :- — " The present Waldenses, or Yaudois in Piedmont, 
who are the posterity of those of old, do practise infant bap- 
tism : and they were also found in the practice of it, when 
the Protestants of Luther's reformation sent to know their 



6 Wall, vol. 2, p. 301. 7 Perrin's Hist, of the Waldenses. 

29* 



342 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



state and doctrine^ and to confer with them : and they them- 
selves do say, that their fathers never practised otherwise. 
And they give proof of it from an old book of theirs, called 
the Spiritual Almanack, where infant baptism is pwned/^ » 
In the 17th article of the rule of faith and practice, 
adopted by all the Waldenses assembled at Angrogne, Sept. 
12, 1535, they state their doctrine of the sacraments as 
follows : — Ai-t. XYII. " As to the sacraments, it has been 
determined by the Holy Scriptures, that we have but two 
sacramental signs or symbols, which Jesus Christ has left 
unto us : the one is baptism, the other the eucharist, or Lord's 
supper, which we receive to demonstrate our perseverance 
in the faith, according to the promise we made in our 
BAPTISM IN OUR INFANCY," &c. Here is the doctrine of the 
Waldenses of this assembly; and it seems that all in this 
assembly had been baptized in their infancy, and that it was 
the general practice among the Waldenses to baptize in 
infancy. Bishop Usher quotes out of Hoveden's Annals in 
Henry II., fol. 319, edit. London, a confession of faith made 
by the honi homines of Tholouse — this was one name given 
to those sects of men that have since been called Waldenses 
— ^who being summoned and examined before a meeting of 
bishops, abbots, &c., repeated it before the assembly; but 
being urged to swear it, refused. In the body of which 
confession they say: "We believe also that no person is 
saved but what is baptized; and that infants are saved hy 
haptism.'" Mr. Baxter having been called upon by Dan vers 
to produce any confession of theirs of any ancient date that 
owned infant baptism, produces this, which was about the 
year 1176, and says, " Would you have a fuller proof?" ^ 
Again, referring to the superstitious additions introduced 



8 Wall, vol. ii. 240. 

9 Murdock's note on Mosheim, Wall, vol. ii. 243, 244. 



HISTORY OF OPPOSITION. 343 



by tlie Papists, they say: ^"The things which are not ne- 
cessary to. baptism, are the exorcisms, the" breathings, the 
sign of the cross upon the head or forehead of the infant^ 
the salt put into the mouth, the spittle into the ears and 
nostrils, the unction on the breast,^ ^ &c. And it is with 
reference to these corruptions that Perrin, the historian of the 
Waldenses, observes, " being constrained for some hundred 
years to suffer their children to be baptized by the priests of 
the Church of Rome, they deferred the doing thereof as long 
as they could, because they had in detestation those human 
inventions that were added to the sacrament, which they 
held to be the pollution thereof/^ ^° Consider one more fact : 
*'Soon after the opening of the Reformation by Luther, they 
sought intercourse with the Reformed churches of Greneva 
and France; held communion' with them; and appeared 
eager to testify their respect and affection for them as 
brethren in the Lord. Now it is well known that the 
Churches of Geneva and France, at this time, were in the 
habitual use of infant baptism. This single fact is sufficient 
to prove that the Waldenses were psedobaptists." " Descent 
is sometimes traced from the Cathari of Germany, the 
Paterines in Italy, and the Paulicians in Greece. But the 
following are well authenticated facts in church history, that 
"all these sects were semi-manicheans ; that the Paulicians 
denied that this inferior and visible world is the production 
of the Supreme Being, and distinguish between the Creator 
of the world, and of the human body, from the Most High 
who dwells in heaven — and hence some have been led to 
conceive that they were a branch of the Gnostics rather than 

10 WaU, vol. ii. 241. 

11 Dr. Samuel Miller on Baptism. And Dr. Miller adds, on same page, 
"If they had adopted the doctrine of our Baptist brethren, and laid the 
same stress on it with them, it is manifest that such intercourse would 
have been wholly out of the question." 



344 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



of the Manichees; that they refused to celebrate the institu- 
tion of the Lord's supper; that they rejected the books of 
the Old Testament, and looked upon the writers of that 
Bacred history as inspired by the Creator of this world, and 
not by the Supreme Grod; that they excluded proselytes and 
elders from all part in the administration of the church ; 
that they interpreted the New Testament allegorically, and 
rejected the two Epistles of St. Peter; that instead of con- 
fessing the human nature and substantial sufferings of 
Christ, they amused their fancy with a celestial body, and 
with a fantastic crucifixion, that eluded the impotent malice 
of the Jews; that they believed in the eternity of matter;" ** 
and many other doctrines they entertained equally irrational, 
unphilosophical, and unscriptural. And they were branched 
as heretics by the G-reek Church. Nor is this all. How- 
ever heretical they were in the above doctrines, they never 
opposed infant baptism, as no evidence of a satisfactory 
nature has ever been adduced that they rejected infant bap- 
tism. Why the Baptists trace the origin of their church to 
such sects as these, it is impossible to conceive, unless it is 
that they strenuously opposed certain extravagant dogmas 
of the Papal Church, such as the cross, the worship of the 
Virgin Mary, and other vain rites and ceremonies of human 
invention. The pretensions of others to descent from the 
Donatists are likewise unfounded. This sect arose in the 
year 311, and is regarded as a schismatic body, and derives 
its name from Donatus, the principal leader in the contro- 
versy that gave rise to the sect. And let it be carefully 
observed, that after their separation from the church, they 
made no alteration in ecclesiastical organization, none in 
doctrine, and continued the practice of infant baptism as 



i2Waddiiigton; Wall; Buck, p. 329; Mosheim, vol. ii. 233; Milner, 
vol. i. 672; Ruter, p. 154. 



HISTORY OF OPPOSITION. 345 



they had done hefore their separation. ^^Tke doctrine of 
the Donatists was conformable to that of the church, as even 
their adversaries confess/' ^^ And yet Mosheim calls them 
2i ^^ schismatical pestilence,'^ and Milner observes, ^^as in 
their origin, so in their manners and spirit all along, they 
seem unworthy to be compared with the first class, the No- 
vatian/'" Another ecclesiastical historian observes, ^^The 
schism of the Donatists was an impetuous torrent. which in- 
undated and desolated the adjacent country; but its limits 
were prescribed, and its mischief confined to the African 
provinces." " ^^ Among all the reasons that the Donatists 
gave why the baptism of the Catholics was null, there is 
none that lays any blame on their giving it in infancy. But 
on the contrary, St. Austin does often make use of the 
instance of infant baptism, as granted hy them, to o^rthrow 
some of their errors that they had about baptism.^'^^ That 
the Donatists did not reject, but practise infant baptism, is 
evident from the following testimony: — ^/ About the time 
when the third Council of Carthage was held, the schism of 
the Donatists began to break apace, and those who had been 
brought up in it came over in great numbers to the com- 
munion of the church. This party of men differed nothing 
from the Catholics in any point either of doctrine, or of 
ceremonies, or of sacraments. Now the bishops of this 
council debated among themselves how far it was expedient 
to admit any that returned from this schism to the church 
into holy orders. And as for those who, having been once 
baptized in the Catholic church, did, after they came to 
years of discretion, revolt to the Donatists, and were bap- 
tized by them, they agreed that such, upon their return to 
the church, might be admitted to lay communion, but never 



IS- Mosheim, vol. i. 123. ^^ Milner, vol. i. 275. 

15 Ruter, p. 81. i6 WaU, vol. ii. 130. 



346 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



bear any office in the church. But the case of those who 
had been horn among the Donatists, and had been in 
THEIR infancy BAPTIZED BY THEM, and after they came 
to years of discretion, disliked the schism, and came over to 
the church, seemed very different. ' Concerning these they 
could not come to any resolution at present ; and therefore 
they agreed that the advice of two of the most noted neigh- 
boring churches should be asked in that matter, and they 
made a canon in these words ; ^ In reference to the Dona- 
tists, it is resolved that we do ask the advice of our brethren 
and fellow-bishops Siricius and Simplicianus, concerning 
those only who in infancy are baptized among them,' 
&c. The answer of these two bishops seems to have been 
in favor of those concerning whom their opinion was asked ; 
and font years after, the Council of Carthage determines the 
point absolutely, that such persons may, if there be occasion, 
be promoted to the ministry. You remember that in a 
former council it was resolved, that they who were in their 
INFANCY BAPTIZED AMONG THE DoNATiSTS, and when they 
came to the age of understanding, acknowledged the truth, 
&c. — they were received by us — all will grant that such 
may undoubtedly be promoted to church offices, especially 
in times of so great need.''^^ Nor is this all. Optatus, 
Bishop of Milevium, in persuading the Donatists to union 
with the church, reminds them that "the ecclesiastical 
organization is one and the same with us and you. Though 
men's minds are at variance, the sacraments are at none. 
And we may say we believe alike, and are sealed with one 
and the same seal: not otherwise BAPTIZED than you, nor 
otherwise ordained than you.'' *^ And Cresconius, a Dona- 
tist, anxious to reunite his brethren with the church, settles 
this question : " There is between us and you one religion, 

17 Wall, vol. i. 307-310. « ibid. vol. i. 161. 



HISTORY OF OPPOSITION. 347 



THE SAME SACRAMENTS, NOTHING IN CHRISTIAN CERE- 

'MONIES DIFFERENT. It IS a scMsm that is between us, not 
1 heresy." ^^ DoNATiSTS therefore baptized infants. 

But the Baptists attempt to trace descent also from the 
N'ovatians, a sect that arose in the year 250, and takes its 
lame from Novatian, who separated from the church, not on 
account of doctrine^ but mere points of discipline. ^' They 
were distinguished merely by their discipline; for their 
religious and doctrinal tenets do not appear to be at all dif- 
ferent from those of the church." ^^ ^^ There was no differ- 
ence in point of doctrine between the Novatians and other 
Christians." ^ Novatian had been a Stoic before he was a 
Christian — and hence probably the rigor of his discipline. 
^'Thus was formed the first body of Christians, who, in 
modern language, may be called dissenters; that is, men 
who separate from the church, not on grounds of doctrine, 
but of discipline. The Novatians held no opinion contrary 
to the faith of the gospel." ^^ ^\^q origin of this schism is 
given by Neander: ^'This dissension arose from a contest 
about the election of a bishop, and from a contention of 
opinions on the subject of church penance." ^3 And Neander 
observes of Novatian, "when he thought himself near his 
end, he was baptized on his sick-bed;" and in a note he 
quotes from a letter from Cornelius, bishop of Borne, to 
Fabius, bishop of Antioch, "Novatian being in danger of 
death, he received the rite of baptism only by sprinkling, 
as his condition required." 2* Benedict himself, whose "His- 
tory of the Baptists" has superseded that of Backus, admits, 
in his quotation from Mr. Orchard's account of the No- 
vatians, all we have said about doctrine. " There was no 



ifl WaU, vol. i. 161. 20 Watson's Theol. Diet. p. 708. 

2' Mosheim, vol. i. 96. 22 Milner, vol. i. 180. 

23 Neander's Church Hist. p. 142. 24 n^i^. p. 142. 



348 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



difference in points of doctrine between the Novatians and 
other Christians." ^^ The conclusion then is inevitable, that 
the Novatians baptized infants. 

The testimony of Augustine, Pelagius, and Celestius is 
conclusive on this' subject. The celebrated controversy 
between them, to which we have already referred, occurred 
after the rise of the Novatians. Now had the Novatians 
denied infant baptism, these three men could not have failed 
to know the fact, for they were great travellers, and careful 
obseiTers of the manners and customs of the countries 
through which they travelled. Pelagius and Celestius 
'' spent the prime of their age at Rome, a place to which all 
the people of the world then had a resort. . They were both 
for some time at Carthage in Africa. Then one settled at 
Jerusalem, and the other travelled through all the noted 
G-reek and Eastern churches in Europe and Asia. It is im- 
possible there should have been any church that had any 
singular practice in this matter, but they must have heard 
of it. So that one may fairly conclude that there was not 
at this time, nor in the memory of the men of this time, any 
Christian society that denied baptism to infants." ^° Pelagius 
declared, that "he never heard, no, not even any impious 
heretic or sectary, that denied infants baptism." And 
besides. Wall continues, "there are so many books extant, 
written at the same time, by Cyprian, Eusebius, Optatus, 
Austin, &c., containing a ventilation of all the disputes 
between the Catholics and these men, in which nothing has 
ever been observed that should intimate that they had any 
such practice or opinion." *' Indeed, Mr. Benedict concedes 
the whole point at issue. "As this [the Novatian] is the 
first party of importance who were acknowledged to be sound 



25 Benedict, edit. 1848, p. 6. 26 ^all, vol. i. 476. 

27 Ibid. vol. ii. 129. 



HISTORY OF OPPOSITION. 349 



in doctrine which withdreio from the established church, 
it is proper to give a full account of the reasons which led 
to the separation/' &c.^^ And what were "the reasons?'' 
Why just the reasons given by the learned authors above, 
and infant, baptism is not mentioned as one of those reasons. 
And finally, the third Council of Carthage, which unani- 
mously refused to defer the baptism of infants till the eighth 
day, gave its decision at the very time, in the very 

YEAR, IN which THE SCHISM OE NOVATIAN OCCURRED. 

Thus, the testimony of a thousand years from the birth of 
Christ is undisturbed by a single instance of opposition to 
the apostolic practice of infant baptism. Nay, further, there 
was no opposition to infant baptism for twelve hundred years, 
except from Tertullian, who admitted the universal preva- 
lence of it in his day, and the Petrobrussians, who founded 
their opposition to infant baptism upon grounds that would 
overturn the Baptist Church. Nay, I will go further. For 
more than fifteen hundred years of the Christian era, there 
was not a single church on earth that opposed infant bap- 
tism upon the ground occupied by the modern Baptist 
Church. In the year 1522, according to authentic eccle- 
siastical history, the anabaptists in Germany rejected infant 
baptism upon the principles adopted by the Baptist Church 
of the present day. This is absolutely and strictly true, 
according to the positive and unequivocal testimony of the 
history of the chm'ch. Opposition to infant baptism began 
in the Dark Ages — -but we have light to trace this opposition 
to its earliest origin, and to define satisfactorily its authors 
and its character. If opposition to the practice of infant 
baptism were now to begin in this enlightened day, the Bap- 
tist Church could never exist; and if the Baptist Church 
would now examine its claims and pretensions on this sub- 



28 Hist, of the Baptists, p. 4. 
30 



350 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



ject by the light of the sacred record and ecclesiastical his- 
tory, it would soon cease to exist as an independent branch 
of the Christian church. Opposition to infant baptism can 
originate in nothing else than mere surmises, vague con- 
jectures, and fondly cherished fancies. It was this kind of 
opposition to infant baptism that Calvin resisted so boldly 
in his day. Says he, "Whereas certain persons spread 
abroad among simple people that there passed a long series 
of years after the resurrection of Christ, in which infant 
baptism was not practised, therein do they lie most ahomina, 
hly ; for there is no writer so ancient that doth not certainly 
refer the heginning thereof to the age of the apostles.^' And 
the learned Brown affirms the same thing : " None can without 
the most affronted imposition allege that infant baptism was 
not commonly allowed in the primitive ages of Christianity.'' 
And Milner crushes the whole opposition to infant baptism 
by a sweeping, universal negative: ^' We never had,'' says 
he, ^^such a custom as that of confining baptism to adults, 
nor the churches of God/' 

So far therefore from defining the time, place, and cir- 
cumstances of the supposed innovation of infant baptism, we 
find every thing to the contrary; the church in no age 
making any effort to innovate on this subject, but continu- 
ing in uninterrupted tranquillity respecting the authenticity, 
validity, and practice of infant baptism, for more than a 
thousand years; while we are able definitely to expose to 
the world the very time, place, and circumstances of oppo- 
sition to infant baptism — a long-standing doctrine of the 
Christian church. 

I cannot close this objection without making one more 
remark. It is admitted on all hands, that infant baptism 
has been the practice of the church since the close of the 
second century. It has been proved, that opposition to this 
practice did not commence within a thousand years from the 



HISTORY OF OPPOSITION. 351 



beginning of the Christian church. It is also unquestion- 
able, that, had the Baptist church existed at any time dur- 
ing this period, it would have opposed the practice as 
unscriptural, and as an innovation; and the Baptist Church 
would certainly have obtained information of the time, place, 
and circumstances of the innovation. But no opposition to 
infant baptism, as a primitive and apostolic practice, is heard 
of in the church till the twelfth century — nay, upon the 
principles of modern Baptists, none till the beginning of the 
sixteenth century — and therefore the Baptist Church 

MUST DATE ITS ORIGIN IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. Had 

the Baptist Church existed sooner, we should have heard of 
its opposition to infant baptism sooner. The beginning of 
opposition to infant baptism, upon the principles maintained 
by the Baptist Church, is coeval with the beginning of the 
Baptist Church : the latter commences with the former : and 
therefore to find the time of the one is to find out the origin 
of the other : which we have done in this chapter. ^^ 

29 Mr. Gale takes exceptions against tlie books, and translations of the 
books of the Fathers, whenever they support the doctrine of infant bap- 
tism. Dr. WaU replies: "To one that ia so endless in his cavils and 
exceptions against the books and translations, we must, I think, stop his 
mouth with that answer of Mr. Stokes: 'It is your common method to 
evade the authority of the Fathers, by saying, they are but translations, 
&c. But you have neither originals nor translations of those early 
times on your side.' Were there no anti-paedobaptists then to translate?" 
&c. Wall, vol. iv. 362. 



352 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



CHAPTER III. 

OTHER OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 

1. '^ There is no positive command respecting infant 
baptism: infant baptism is not explicitly enjoined in the 
Scriptures.'' 

"We reply, admitting this to be true — ^wbicb we do not — 
this is the strongest proof of its validity. It is as clearly 
implied, in certain scriptures, as if it were explicitly en- 
joined; and a clearly implied duty is as binding as one 
positively enjoined. But while it is often alluded to inci- 
dentally, and embraced in general commissions without speci- 
fication, because it was well known at the time, and admitted 
hy all, — in other scriptures, as we have seen, it is explicitly 
and positively referred to. Besides, if the force of the above 
objection be admitted, for the same reason, women should 
not be admitted to the Lord's supper; nor should the church 
consider it optional to select the mode of communing, or the 
quality and quantity of bread and wine to be received; nor 
should we keep the first day of the week instead of the 
seventh as the Sabbath. The change of the Sabbath is not 
explicitly and positively enjoined, yet it is implied, and the 
o])ligation to keep the Sabbath continues through all genera- 
tions. Moreover, the absence of positive repeal is equiva- 
lent to the confirmation of the original statute, as we have 
proved in a former part of this treatise. 

2. "Repentance and faith are necessary to baptism : in- 
fants cannot perform these conditions, and therefore they 
ought not to be baptized." 



REPENTANCE AND FAITH NOT NECESSARY. 353 



(1.) True, tliey cannot believe — the power of faith is not 
yet developed; nor are the laws of faith yet applicable. 
They cannot repent — they have nothing to repent of — they 
are justified through the atonement of Christ, and this justi- 
fication gives them as good a title to baptism as repentance 
and faith give to the adult. Where sin has been committed, 
repentance and faith are necessary, but where it has not 
been committed, repentance and faith are not necessary ; and 
therefore the infant is just as innocent in Christ as the 
penitent believer, and has on this ground just as good a title 
to baptism as the adult believer. 

(2.) The Scriptures require faith of adults, and hence 
adults must exercise faith before they are entitled to baptism. 
The obligation of faith can be imposed only upon those who 
are capable of believing; but infants are not capable of 
believing, and therefore they are not required to believe in 
order to be saved or to be baptized. The irresponsibility of 
infancy presents no stronger obstacle to infant baptism than 
it does to infant salvation, and consequently the obligation 
of faith enters not into the question of infant baptism as a 
prerequisite, any more than into the question of infant salva- 
tion, and is confined wholly to the case of adults, in whose 
minds the power of faith is developed, and to whom alone, 
because they are capable of believing, the principles of re- 
sponsibility are applicable. 

(3.) If this objection is of any force against infant bap- 
tism, it is of equal force against infant circumcision. But 
God judged otherwise. The Jews were "broken off through 
unbelief,^ ^ which signifies that they stood by faith — and yet 
their children were graff"ed in with them. Faith never stood 
in the way of children under the old dispensation; and as 
God is always the same, the covenant the same, the princi- 
ples of moral obligation the same, moral relations the same, 
the relations of children to God in Christ Jesus the same, 

30* 



854 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDEREi.. 



ana to their parents the same, why make any change in the 
application of the great covenant that has received children 
from the beginning? Nothing short of express command 
from heaven, accompanied by a miracle, can exclude chil- 
dren from baptism for want of faith. 

(4.) The objection founded upon the supposed necessity 
of repentance and faith as preliminary to baptism, will vanish 
when we properly distinguish between conditional and un- 
conditional salvation. The conditionality of salvation has 
no reference to infants, as must be admitted by all, and 
hence, wherever repentance and faith are explicitly men- 
tioned in the Scriptures as the condition of baptism, the case 
oi infants is not referred to, but the duty of those who are 
capable of repentance and faith. The Apostle Paul declares, 
^' that if any would not work, neither should he eat,'' This 
declaration has reference alone to those who are capable of 
working, and yet infants, who cannot work, are not hereby 
to be deprived of food. Infants can no more be excluded 
from baptism upon this ground, than they can be held re- 
sponsible for the discharge of the conditions of salvation. 
Rules and obligations applicable to persons of riper yea/s 
cannot be prescribed for infants in order to baptism, since 
baptism, as in the case of circumcision, is due to infants on 
grounds independent of accountability. It is on this ground 
likewise, that infants are not regarded as proper subjects for 
the communion, since, in all cases, the proper observance of 
the holy eucharist is involved in the scope of responsibility 
Finally, the adult is saved conditionally^ and therefore he is 
baptized conditionally ; but the infant is saved uncondition- 
ally ^ and therefore he should be baptized unconditionally. 
The adult is entitled to both baptism and salvation con- 
ditionally ; the infant is entitled to both baptism and salva- 
tion unconditionally. If the infant has an unconditional 
title to salvation, the suhstance^ he has undoubtedly the same 



REPENTANCE AND FAITH NOT NECESSARY. 355 



kind of right to baptism, the outward, visible sign and seed 
of salvation. You cheerfully grant the infant, dying in in- 
fancy, an unconditional right to spiritual baptism, and yet 
deny his right to water baptism, which is emblematical of 
the spiritual. Baptism is the outward sign and seal of the 
covenant of salvation, setting forth the right of the believer 
to all the blessings of that covenant in time and eternity. 
But the infant has an unconditional title to all these cove- 
nanted blessings, and therefore he has an unconditional and 
indubitable title to baptism, the outward sign and seal of the 
covenant conveying these blessings. The title, of the infant 
and the believer to salvation is the same; their title to bap- 
tism therefore is the same. In a word, the objection is 
founded upon the infant's unconsciousness. But the infant's 
unconsciousness is no objection to his salvation : he is saved 
through the atonement of Christ. But he is unconscious of 
this saving interest in the atonement, and as his unconscious- 
ness does not destroy his title to salvation, it cannot invali- 
date his title to baptism that sets forth his interest in the 
atonement. On the ground of the infant's unconsciousness, 
dreadful as the conclusion is — and yet it is unavoidable 
from such premises — the infant ought not to he saved. But 
his unconsciousness does not disqualify him for salvation, 
and therefore his unconsciousness does not disentitle him to 
baptism. In a word, in view of the great principles of the 
plan of salvation J it is impossible- to deny the infant an un- 
conditional title to haptis7n, without denying him an uncon- 
ditional title to salvation — ^which would be a most appalling 
heterodoxy as the foundation of the Baptist Church. The 
conclusion is inevitable, that repentance and faith enter in 
no respect into the question of infant baptism. 

There are several other forms of this objection to infant 
baptism which we will here consider. 

"There is not a single case mentioned in the New 



856 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



Testament in whicli baptism did not require faith in the 
adult; therefore children ought not to be baptized/' There 
is not a single case mentioned in the Old Testament in 
which circumcision did not require faith in the adult; there- 
fore children ought not to have been circumcised under the 
Jewish dispensation. The inference in both cases is equally 
unsound and inconclusive. For as Abraham was circum- 
cised in view of his faith, and circumcision extended to his 
children, so baptism should be administered to the children 
of believers, to say no more, under the Christian dispensa- 
tion. The sacred record of the baptism of whole families 
upon the opening of the Christian dispensation, introduces 
no new order of things respecting children; the statements 
are made as if the old order of things had been subjected to 
no innovation in this matter. Thus, ^^Lydia was baptized 
atid her family f^ the jailer "was baptized, and all his, 
straightway. '^ "The promise is unto you, and your chil- 
dren.^' Besides, not one single adult believer baptized by 
the apostles, is spoken of as descended from Christian 
parentage, while not one adult believer, descended from 
Christian parentage, is said to have been baptized in adult 
age. That "the baptism of adult believers is the only 
gospel baptism,^' is argued by Mr. Jewett " from the spiri- 
tual nature of the Christian dispensation.^' What, was not 
the Jewish dispensation spiritual aa, well as temporal ? If 
not, how could circumcision be "the seal of the righteous- 
ness of faith f' If the Jewish dispensation was not in part 
spiritual, then none under that dispensation could he saved, 
except hy the light of nature; and so the only peculiar bless- 
ings secured by the Jewish dispensation to the Jews, were 
those of a temporal nature ! But the Jewish dispensation 
was spiritual as well as temporal, and hence circumcision 
was the sign and seal of a spiritual dispensation. And on 
this very ground infants have a better title to baptism than 



EEPENTANCE AND FAITH NOT NECESSARY. 357 



Jewish children had to circumcision, since children now are 
under a better dispensation, and especially since Christ has 
left unrepealed the original enactment made in their case. 

"The significancy of baptism, and the obligation under 
which its reception lays its subjects, afford conclusive proof 
that it should be applied only to believers.^' So far as bap- 
tism refers to adults, this is true. The same conclusion is 
true as it respects children : in riper years, they can recog- 
nise the " significancy,'^ and sanction and discharge "the 
obligations'' involved in infant baptism. In baptism, the 
infant is brought under obligation to repent and believe, 
should God in his providence spare him to the age of ac- 
countability, which obligation is imposed upon him inde- 
pendently of his unconsciousness and non-concurrence, and 
which he is bound to keep and perform. Obligation, in the 
case of infants, is left to be perfected by subsequent obe- 
dience — indeed, infant baptism expresses the obligations of 
repentance, faith, love of Christ, and a holy life. Infants 
were circumcised in view oi future obligations to repent and 
believe; hereby they became " debtors to the law." So under 
John's dispensation, the, Jews were baptized unto future 
repentance and faith. And so children now are baptized in 
view of the solemn obligations of the whole subsequent life. 

" The gospel saves none but by faith. The gospel has to 
do with those who hear it. It is good news; but to infants 
it is no news at aU. None shall ever be saved by the gospel 
who do not believe it. Consequently, by the gospel no in- 
fant can be saved. Infants are saved by the death of Christ, 
but not by [believing] the gospel, not by faith." * 

Now to believe in the gospel, and to be saved by the death 
of Christ, are one and the same thing in the end, for salva- 
.tion is the result. Believers are saved by faith in the death 

' Jewett, p. 101. 



358 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



of Christ, and infants are saved by the death of Christ with- 
out faith; hence children are as much saved by the death 
of Christ as believers are. The gospel has glad tidings as 
specifically for the infant as it has for the adult. If not, 
why mention them at all in the Old and New Testaments ? 
The mere fact, that infants cannot ^^hear," "believe," and 
understand the gospel, does not invalidate their title to the 
blessings of the gospel, since Christ died for them, and now 
ever lives in heaven to make intercession for them, and 
therefore, hy the gospel, their title to baptism is as certainly 
secured to them as salvation is provided for them. 
"The Bible makes faith a pre-requisite of baptism." 
So it does in the case of the adult, and such should be 
the pre-requisite in the case of every adult person in the 
present day, who has not been baptized — such was the order 
in the days of the apostles — such should be the demand of 
missionaries in pagan countries — and such was the order in 
the case of Abraham, who first exercised faith and then was 
circumcised. But with the posterity of believers — to say 
no more — ^in Christendom and in paganism, it is difierent, 
as it was with the posterity of Abraham. The right of in- 
fants to formal initiation into the church is connected with 
every formal dispensation of the covenant of grace in all 
time. In a word, the Baptists adduce scriptures referring 
to adult baptism, and insist on the universal necessity of 
understanding and faith in order to the legitimate adminis- 
tration of baptism. This is a sophism. The premises are 
particular — the conclusion is universal, which is illogical. 
The premises specifically embrace adults only, and hence 
children cannot be brought into the conclusion. The Uni- 
tarians are in the habit of adducing those passages which 
only prove that Christ is marij and from which they infer 
he is not God, which is a sophism, since his divinity does 
not enter into the premises. We all agree on the points of 



REPENTANCE AND FAITH NOT NECESSARY. 359 



adult baptism and Christ's humanity, but these points of 
agreement do not logically embrace the negative of infant 
baptism and Christ's divinity. Consequently the discussion 
of infant baptism must proceed upon other and appropriate 
premises. 

To sum up our reply to the objection under consideration : 
— ^It is objected, infants cannot repent, and therefore they 
should not be baptized. That is the very reason why they 
should be baptized, provided a sufficient ground already 
exists on which repentance is dispensed with in the case of 
infants — and such is the vicarious death of Christ. Again, 
it is objected, infants cannot believe, and therefore they 
should not be baptized. Again we reply, that is the very 
reason why they should be baptized, provided a sufficient 
ground already exists on which faith is dispensed with in 
the. case of infants — and such is the vicarious death of Christ. 
Again, it is objected, infants cannot exercise consciousness 
or moral intelligence, and therefore they ought not to be 
baptized. To this we reply, that is the very reason why 
they should be baptized, provided a sufficient ground already 
exists on which moral intelligence is dispensed with in the 
case of infants — and such is the vicarious death of Christ. 
Again, it is objected, infants are not responsible, and there- 
fore they should not be baptized. And to this we reply, 
that is the very reason why they should be baptized, pro- 
vided a sufficient ground already exists on which responsi- 
bility is dispensed with in the case of infants — and such is 
the vicarious death of Christ. Thus, the very reasons why 
baptism is denied to infants, are the very reasons why it 
should be granted to them. If they could repent, believe, 
exercise consciousness, or were responsible, their right to 
baptism would depend upon conditions to be performed by 
ihem; but since, in the very nature of things, they cannot 
36 held responsible for the performance of conditions, their 



360 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



right to baptism is founded upon the vicarious death of 
Christ — a death that answers in the sight of the law, in the 
case of infants, as if they had repented, believed, and obeyed 
the gospel — a death that dispenses, in their case, with the 
discharge of all conditions under the gospel as pre-requisite 
to baptism and salvation — a death that as fully entitles 
them to all the blessings of the gospel as if they had dis- 
charged all the conditions of the gospel. Indeed, the infant 
has just as good a right to baptism as Christ himself had 
to circumcision. Christ's right to circumcision was founded 
upon his own inherent merit; the infant's right to baptism 
is founded upon Christ's meritorious vicarious death for 
him : the gracious relation which the infant sustains to the 
death of Christ entitles him just as much to baptism as it 
does to salvation : the latter must be denied before the for- 
mer can be legitimately withheld. 

Again, every argument, however plausible, that is opposed 
to a known truth, is false. Thus, he who will not work, 
neither shall he eat: infants cannot work; therefore they 
shall not eat. Again, the Scriptures require repentance and 
faith in order to salvation: infants cannot repent and be- 
lieve; therefore they cannot be saved. Here the known 
truths are, infants are entitled to food without working, and 
to salvation without repentance and faith. Again, "circum- 
cision verily profiteth if thou keep the law;'' but infants 
cannot keep the law; therefore their circumcision must be 
unprofitable. Here the truth opposed is the wisdom of God. 
Thus, the right of infants to baptism is founded upon the 
known truth, that they are saved without repentance and 
faith. In other words, there cannot be more in the con- 
clusion than is contained in the premises. Thus, infants 
must be inserted in the premises as follows : — The Scriptures 
do not require repentance and faith of infants in order to 
salvation; therefore they may be saved without repentance 



BAPTISM IS SUBSTITUTED; ETC. S61 



and faith. Here tlie conclusion is contained in tlie premises. 
The Scriptures do require repentance and faith of adults in 
order to baptism; therefore adults who believe are entitled 
to baptism. Here, the conclusion is contained in the premi- 
ses. The Scriptures do not require repentance and faith of 
infants in order to baptism; therefore infants, without re- 
pentance and faith, are entitled to baptism. Here the con- 
clusion is contained in the premises, since infants are entitled 
to salvation without repentance and faith, and right to bap- 
tism is necessarily involved. The same requisitions are 
made upon adults for both salvation and baptism; but these 
requisitions are dispensed with in the case of infants for 
salvation, and the right to baptism follows. By repentance 
and faith, the adult has a right to salvation, the thing signi- 
fied, and to baptism, the sign signifying; but the infant, 
without repentance and faith, has a right to salvation, the 
thing signified, and of conrse has a right to baptism, the 
thing signifying. 

3. We proceed to consider another objection. "Baptism 
is not substituted for circumcision, and therefore children 
ought not to be baptized.'^ 

(1.) Then the Christian dispensation is without an initia- 
tory sacrament, and the covenant of salvation, under the 
Christian dispensation, is wholly destitute of a corresponding 
outward sign and seal. Consequently adult believers are 
not initiated into the Christian church by baptism. We 
then ask, how are any who are entitled to salvation initiated 
into the Christian church ? Why did Christ, upon the open- 
ing of the Christian dispensation, command his disciples to 
baptize? Why did the apostles baptize three thousand 
believers on the day of Pentecost ? And why do the Bap- 
tists now baptize even adult believers ? Why, because bap- 
tism is the initiating sacrament of the Christian dispensation, 
and hence baptism is substituted for circumcision, the ini- 

31 



862 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



tiating sacrament of the Jewish dispensation; and therefore 
children ought to be baptized. 

(2.) We shall consider this objection further by noticing 
the arguments adduced in support of it. 

First. ^<The Jewish dispensation was a civil institution.** 
Granted ; but it was more. It was typical — typical of what ? 
Not of temporal blessings merely, for these were already in 
possession. But of spiritual blessings also, and hence it 
embraced the spiritual interests of children, which under 
the Christian dispensation cannot be formally set forth but 
by baptism. 

Secondly. ^^If baptism be substituted for circumcision, 
then none but male children ought to be baptized. '^ This 
by no means follows. 

[1st.] Adult females were baptized by the apostles, and 
therefore, as the apostles varied in this particular, there is no 
reason why they might not vary also with regard to infant 
females. 

[2d.] The limitation of one dispensation for special pur- 
poses, does not necessarily involve a corresponding restriction 
in another, in which such purposes are not embraced. The 
fulness of the Christian dispensation includes infant females 
as proper subjects of baptism, since the reasons for their 
exclusion from circumcision under the Jewish dispensation 
no longer exist. The Christian dispensation is more en- 
larged than the Jewish, and, like the ^^ glorious gospel," 
embraces all nations ] so that as circumcision is no longer 
answerable, an initiatory rite must be selected and enjoined, 
corresponding to the number of its objects — ^^ every crea- 
ture," — and the range of its blessings — '' all the world ;" and 
the application of this rite is not confined to the eighth day, 
nor to place, nor to sex. Under the Jewish dispensation, 
males only, whether Jews or proselytes, received circum- 
cision, and the whole family entered into covenant, and for 



BAPTISM IS SUBSTITUTED, ETC. 863 



this obvious reason. It was unnecessary under the Jewish 
dispensation, that any initiatory rite should be applicable to 
the females, since, from >the constitution of the Jewish 
polity, the rite that initiated the males represented the title 
of the females also to the same covenanted blessings, on the 
exercise o^ faith, according to the light of their dispensation. 
Indeed, this objection, if admitted, proves too much. Adult 
females were included in the covenant, and were members 
of the visible church of God under the old dispensation, 
though they did not receive the seal of the covenant any 
more than infant females. Were adult females excluded 
from the covenant, or from the visible church of Grod, under 
the Jewish dispensation, because they received not the token 
of membership ? Certainly not. They were recognised as 
having as good a title in these respects as the infant male 
who had been circumcised. Besides, infant females were 
included in the covenant, and recognised as entitled to 
church membership, independently of the rite of circum- 
cision. But infant females, and adult females who believe, 
are still included in the covenant, under the Christian dis- 
pensation, and as baptism is to be administered to both 
males and females, under the Christian dispensation, the 
rights which females had under the old dispensation, with- 
out circumcision, are now set forth by baptism. The ex- 
ception in the case of females is withdrawn under the 
expanded and perfected dispensation of Christ : " for there 
is neither bond nor free, neither male nor female, but we 
are all one in Christ Jesus.'' 

There is another reason why baptism should be conferred 
on females under the Christian dispensation. Under the 
civil polity of the Jewish people, as under all sound civil 
governments, the females are represented by the males, in 
voting, eligibility to office, &c.; indeed, under the Jewish 
polity, in both church and state, the rights of females were 



364 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



in some respects absorbed in those of the males, and thus 
the females, from infancy, were recognised as entitled to all 
the privileges of the ^^ promise'^ or the "everlasting cove- 
nant/' and when they arrived at the proper age, they en- 
joyed all the privileges of the promise or covenant, in 
church and state. But under the Christian dispensation, 
the civil and ceremonial character of the Jewish dispensa- 
tion having passed away, and consequently the females 
being no longer represented by the circumcision of the 
males, and infant females being included in the "promise" 
or "everlasting covenant" as well as the males, they are 
entitled to baptism, the seal of the "promise" or "everlast- 
ing covenant," undeir the Christian dispensation, as much as 
the males. Under the Jewish dispensation, their right to 
the blessings of the everlasting covenant was formally repre- 
sented by the males, and was formally involved in their 
relation to the males. But under the Christian dispensa- 
tion their right to the blessings of the "everlasting cove- 
nant" continues, and will continue to the end of time; and 
as this right is no longer represented by social or civil rela- 
tions, it must be formally and sacramentally set forth by 
baptism, the seal of the "everlasting covenant" under the 
Christian dispensation. In other words, the spiritual mean- 
ing or signification of the sign and seal of the "everlasting 
covenant," contained in the circumcision of the males under 
the Jewish dispensation, is now expressed in baptism under 
the Christian dispensation. Under the Jewish dispensation, 
from the relation of the females to the males, the scope of 
circumcision was the same as though it had been conferred 
on both sexes : the meaning of baptism is now the same in 
its spiritual character as the spiritual meaning of circum- 
cision was under the Jewish dispensation ] and consequently, 
as the females are no longer represented by the males, they 
must be baptized- for themselves, as expressive of their own. 



BAPTISM IS SUBSTITUTED, ETC. 365 



personal, spiritual interest in the everlasting covenant. 
And thus as the spiritual as well as civil interest of infant 
females was represented by the circumcision of the males 
under the Jewish dispensation, and answered for infant 
females as well as if the right had been conferred on them; 
and as, in the very nature of things, the spiritual interest 
of infant females cannot be represented by the baptism of 
the males under the Christian dispensation, — baptism, the 
seal of the everlasting covenant, under the Chi'istian dispen- 
sation, must be conferred on infant females, or their per- 
sonal spiritual interest in the everlasting covenant cannot be 
formally and sacramentally represented. The very nature 
of the Christian dispensation entitles infant females to hajp-' 
tism; for under the Christian dispensation, 'Hhere is neither 
bond nor free, neither male nor female, but all are one in 
Christ Jesus." 

There is another essential reason why baptism should be 
conferred on females under the Christian dispensation. 
Often the females only in a family are converted, while the 
males continue in unbelief, and consequently the females 
should be baptized. Thus, in the nature of things, though 
circumcision was denied to females under the Jewish dis- 
pensation, they should receive baptism under the Christian 
dispensation. And as it is faith in the adult female that 
entitles to the blessings of the everlasting covenant, and so 
entitles to baptism also, the formal, sensible seal of the 
covenant — and as infant females are entitled to the bless- 
ings of the everlasting covenant without faith, so they are 
entitled to baptism also, the seal of the covenant. The 
rights of the adult female who believes, and the infant fe- 
male, are the same — the one conditionally, the other un- 
conditionally — and consequently baptism can no more be 
denied to the one than to the other. Christ is the sole 
representative of the infant female under the Christian disr 

31* 



366 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



pensation, and hence the right of the infant female to salva- 
tion and baptism can no more be denied than the gracious 
relation of the infant female to Christ can be annulled. 

There is another and a special reason why circumcision 
should be abolished upon the establishment of Christianity. 
The covenant of grace, formally made with Abraham, em- 
braces the promise of the Messiah, in whom all nations were 
to be blessed, and his descent was restricted to the line of 
Isaac. Circumcision was the formal seal to this promise, 
by which Grod was pledged to fulfil his covenant, and the 
Jews generally were preserved in the expectation of the 
promised Messiah. In this respect, circumcision had a 
most important spiritual signification. In a word, it had a 
special prosjpective sacramental import. Therefore, when 
the promised Jlessiah came, and made atonement for all 
nations, in all time, the design of circumcision was consum- 
mated, and circumcision was abolished as a rite no longer 
significant or sacramental in its use; and baptism, retro- 
spectivel?/ referring to the es-tablishment of Christianity by 
the death of Christ, and signifying the "putting off the 
body of the sins of the flesh,'' and corresponding to the 
boundless fulness of the gospel, was substituted in the place 
of circumcision. 

Thirdly. "We learn from Acts, 21st chapter, that Paul 
was censured by many of the believing Jews, because he' 
* taught the Jews who were among the Gren tiles to forsake 
Moses, saying, that they ought not to circumcise their chil- 
dren.' (Yer. 21.) How natural it would have been for Paul 
to appease the clamor and conciliate the prejudices of the 
Jews, by replying that baptism was substituted for circum- 
cision. But we hear not a word from his lips on the sub- 
ject." And the inference therefore is, that baptism is not 
substituted for circumcision. But the inference is stronger, 
that that was the very reason why he prohibited circumcision. 



BAPTISM IS SUBSTITUTED, ETC. 361 



It is most probable, that the apostle did not forbid circum- 
cision in the case of children, bnt upon the ground that the 
Christian dispensation was provided with a proper substitute 
in their case — and hence the apostle's silence is in favor of 
infant baptism. The explanation of the disaffection of the 
Jews on this occasion, will strengthen this conclusion. 
Under John's dispensation, during which Jewish rites were 
not abolished, the Jews were permitted both to circumcise 
and baptize their children. Therefore, at the death of 
Christ, and the consequent abolition of the Jewish dispensa- 
tion, they desired the same privileges that they had enjoyed 
under John's dispensation, to which Paul objected, on the 
evangelical ground that circumcision, was no longer ne- 
cessary. The Jews wished to circumcise as well as baptize 
their children. This the apostle prohibited, because bap- 
tism, being substituted for circumcision, answered the whole 
spiritual design of circumcision. If, after this prohibition, 
the silence of Paul is a proof that baptism is not substituted 
for circumcision, the silence of the Jews, on the other hand, 
is a proof that baptism is substituted for circumcision, for 
they make no inquiries respecting a suhstitute. 

Fourthly. In referring to a council held at Jerusalem, 
composed of apostles and elders, to determine how far Gren- 
tile converts might conform to Jewish usages. Dr. Bald- 
win, quoted by Professor Knowles, observes: ^^By the 
unanimous voice of a council comprising most, if not all the 
apostles and elders of the Christian church, and by the 
approbation of the Holy Ghost, we see circumcision put 
down, and no substitute proposed in its room.'^ 

The question considered in this council had no reference 
to the substitution of a rite in the place of circumcision, for 
this had already been done by the great Founder of Chris- 
tianity, but to the abandonment of circumcision and the 
Mosaic ceremonial law. For, while the apostles were giving 



368 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



the brethren an account of the "conversion of the G-entiles" 
— observe, the people converted are G-entiles — then, "certain 
Pharisees, which believed, rose up, and said, that it was 
needful to circumcise, and to command them to keep the 
law of Moses/' The question then, is concerning "circum- 
cision and keeping the law of Moses/' The council decided, 
that the law of Moses and circumcision were no longer bind- 
ing on mankind, Jew or G-entile. What then? Why, ye 
Grentiles obey the gospel of Christ, which we have preached 
to you. But what had the apostles preached to these Gren- 
tile converts? Certainly nothing else than the doctrines 
contained in the great commission, viz. "He that believeth 
and is haptized shall be saved," &c.j which they had 
preached before this council met, and of course, having 
previously explained to them the nature and design of bap- 
tism, no further instruction on this subject was necessary. 
The Pharisees wished to add "circumcision." All that was 
necessary for the apostles to do was to put down circum- 
cision, which they did, and sent letters accordingly to their 
converts, "which when they had read, they rejoiced for con- 
solation." The question was not concerning the truth of 
Christianity, but whether Judaism should be added to it. 
The apostolic council decide that Christianity answers with- 
out Judaism, and therefore baptism will answer without cir- 
cumcision. They had already explained and proved Chris- 
tianity, and all that now remained was to oonfirm them in 
the faith. And so they were commanded to "abstain from 
all meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things 
strangled," &c.; and Judas and Silas, who are sent unto 
them, " exhort the brethren with many words, and confirm 
them." Also Paul and Silas go "through Syria and Cilicia 
(the very places to which the council wrote the decision 
above,) confirming the churches" — that is, establishing them 
in the doctrines of Christianity, so that though baptism was 



BAPTISM IS SUBSTITUTED, ETC. 369 



not mentioned in the decision of the council, it is most 
probable it was repeated in the preaching of the apostles. 
Indeed, the fact that these Gentile converts had been bap- 
tized, and now desired circumcision, is strong presumptive 
proof that the apostles considered' baptism in the place of 
circumcision. Had these G-entile converts been circumcised 
as well as baptized, then the argument would have been 
clear and strong that baptism was not substituted for cir- 
cumcision; and therefore, had the decision of the council 
been that these persons should be circumcised, we must 
have yielded the point to our Baptist brethren. But the 
decision of the council in putting down circumcision, most 
clearly shows that the apostles and elders, "with the appro- 
bation of the Holy Grhost,^' considered baptism, already 
administered to these converts, as suflacient, and consequently 
substituted in the place of circumcision. But finally, the 
question to be decided by this council was not respecting 
infant circumcision, but the circumcision of adult helieving 
Gentiles. Had the question of infant circumcision been 
before the council, then very properly the subject of baptism 
would have been considered with reference to infants, and 
the necessary decision transmitted to remove any doubts that 
existed in the minds of the Grentiles on this subject. 

Fifthly. "If circumcision and baptism were the same 
thing, why was baptism administered to persons who had 
been previously circumcised ?" ^ 

[1st.] It is not contended, that they are the same thing. 

[2d.] Yet the fact, that persons were baptized who had 
been circumcised, is positive proof that circumcision was not 
considered by the apostles as initiatory into the Christian 
church, and hence baptism was administered in its place 
If the objection has reference to John's baptism, a sufficient 

2 Jewett, p. 69. 



870 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



reply, already given, is, that John came not to abolish Jew 
ish rites, and therefore his baptism referred to the Christian 
dispensation about to be opened. 

Sixthly. "If baptism be substituted for circumcision, will 
it not of necessity follow, that all servants, ^born in the house 
or bought with money,^ must be baptized on the faith of the 
master?'' 3 Not of necessity in all cases. 

[1st.] All childreTij "bought with money or born in the 
house,'' ought to be baptized, and it has been done, and still 
is done, by all who properly regard their duty. 

[2d.] As it respects adult servants, however, it is differ- 
ent. Such, under the more enlarged dispensation of the 
gospel, can be baptized on their faith alone, for the Christian 
dispensation is wholly spiritual. 

Seventhly. The identity of the Jewish and Christian dis- 
pensations in their spiritual bearing is denied, on the ground 
that the "one, by its constitution, included carnal members; 
the other, by its constitution, admits spiritual members 
only." * This is a fatal mistake. The Jewish dispensation 
was spiritual as well as carnal, or how could any of the Jews 
have been saved? If none but spiritual members can be 
saved, and the Jewish dispensation included none but carnal 
members, then Moses and Aaron and David, and all the 
prophets, with all the members of the Jewish church, lived 
and died without hope ! If the Jewish believer was saved 
under a carnal dispensation, it must have been through 
some typical reference had to the future confirmatory sacri- 
fice of Christ, which gave the Jewish dispensation all its 
spirituality and saving efficacy. And so Paul declares to 
the Judaizing G-alatians, that it is not difi'erent from the 
Christian dispensation in its spiritual meaning. " I marvel 
that you are so soon removed from him that called you into 

3 Jewett, p. 70. 4 i^id. p. 71. 



OTHER OBJECTIONS. 371 



the grace of Christ, unto another gospel, which is not an- 
other/' in its spiritual meaning, and differs only in its ex- 
ternal economy. Of course then the spiritual design of cir- 
cumcision, under the Jewish dispensation, corresponds to 
the spiritual design of baptism, under the Christian dis- 
pensation ; and therefore the outward signs must represent 
each other, so that on the abolition of the one, the other 
must take its place. 

Finally. "Circumcision was a mark of national distinc- 
tion.^' Grranted; but it was more; it was a mark of spiritual 
distinction. ^^I will be to them a Grod, and they shall be to 
me a people." Hereby the Jews are recognised, in the 
highest sense, as the spiritual children of Grod. In a similar 
manner, baptism sets forth this distinction under the Chris- 
tian dispensation. And therefore when the Gralatians desired 
to return to Judaism, the apostle informs them that " if they 
should be circumcised, Christ should profit them nothing,' ' 
since, " as many of them as had been baptized into Christ, 
had put on Christ." That is, a profession of religion, under 
the Christian dispensation, is made by baptism, and not by 
circumcision ; and hence baptism distinguishes the people of 
Grod from the men of the world, in the same manner that 
circumcision distinguished the Jews, "as the people of Grod," 
from the surrounding heathen nations. 

To sum up our reply to the objection under consideration : 
— ^It is admitted, that there are points of difference between 
circumcision and baptism, and that there is not in every 
respect a perfect resemblance between them. But it does 
not follow therefore that one is not put in the place of the 
other. All that is required to establish a general agreement 
between them is, that the principle of both is the same, that 
the main object of both is the same, that the same sacra- 
mental end is accomplished. The nature of prayer, not the 
form, is essential. There are certain points of dissimilarity 



372 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



between the ancient Jewish passover and the Lord's supper, 
and yet the principle of both is the same, and the latter is 
substituted in the place of the former. There are circum- 
stantial differences between the ancient Levitical priests and 
gospel ministers, and yet the latter take the place of the 
former. There are certain very prominent circumstantial 
differences between the beautiful simplicity of Christian 
worship and the gorgeous services of the ancient Jewish 
temple, and yet the latter are set aside by the former. In 
civil matters old laws may be repealed, and new ones enacted, 
and yet the main objects of the former may be retained under 
the latter, and thus the latter be properly regarded as substi- 
tuted in the place of the former. 

4. ^^ Christ was baptized in adult age; and we ought 
herein to follow his example.'^ 

(1.) John did not begin to baptize till Christ was of adult 
age. 

(2.) Then all Christians should not be baptized till they 
are thirtt/ years of age, for it was at that age Christ was 
baptized. 

(3.) The same objection must be in force against infant 
circumcision, since Abraham was not circumcised till he was 
of adult age. 

(4.) Christ was initiated into the Jewish Church in in- 
fancy by circumcision. And lastly, Christ's baptism was a 
solemn initiation into the priest's office, which could not 
legally have occurred at an earlier age ; and hence the period 
of life at which Christ was baptized forms no objection to 
infant baptism. 

5. " Our children are with us in the spiritual church." 
Very true; and for that very reason, they have just as^good 
a title to the formal recognition of this great fact, as you had 
when you believed. You admit, that dying in infancy, they 
are entitled to all blessings of the spiritual church in time 



OTHER OBJECTIONS. 373 



and eternity; surely then, living, they have equally as good 
a title to all the privileges of the external church, which 
we now enjoy through baptism. 

6. ^^But if they die in infancy without baptism, they 
will be saved." And well it is so. The adult believer also, 
if no opportunity to be baptized occur, will be saved, as in 
the case of the dying thief on the cross; and so would the 
infant Jew have been saved, had he died in infancy without 
circumcision, and yet he was circumcised, and being circum- 
cised, when he became capable of enjoying the privileges of 
the Jewish Church, he was recognised as legally entitled to 
them. As in the case of the unbaptized believing adult, 
baptism is administered with reference not only to present 
character, but future rights and obligations, so in the case 
of infant baptism, it is administered with reference to the 
present character, and future rights and obligations of the 
infant. 

7. ^^ Baptism does not make the infant a Christian.'' 
Here we are agreed. We do not believe in baptismal 

regeneration. The objection is as good against adult bap- 
tism as against infant baptism. The adult believer is no 
more justified after his baptism than he was before his bap- 
tism. In neither case is the heart changed by baptism, and 
hence the inefficacy of baptism to change the heart is no 
argument against infant baptism. 

8. ^'Baptism administered to infants is not binding, since 
it is necessarily administered without the exercise of volition 
on the part of the child." We shall consider this objection 
at some length. 

First. Baptism does not originate obligation, but implies 
obligation already existing, founded upon Grod's original 
right to the child dying in infancy, and to his obedience, 
should he arrive at responsible age. The validity of infant 
baptism does not depend upon the volition of the subject, 



32 



374 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



but the divinity of its origin, and corresponding propriety in 
its administration. Infant baptism has been proved to be 
an institution perpetuated by Christ, and hence the adult 
who was baptized in infancy, has no right to exercise a 
private judgment in opposition to a matter sanctioned and 
enjoined by the word of Grod, as the standard of conscience 
and moral liberty. The rights of private judgment are no 
more invaded in the administration of baptism in infancy, 
than in the inculcation of moral truths in infant education 
by the parent. The doctrines taught at an early age furnish 
the standard of private judgment, and the child is hereby 
brought under moral obligation; and hence the adult, bap- 
tized in infancy, has no more right, upon the ground of 
moral duty, to discard his infant baptism, than he has to 
violate the obligations of his early education. Infant bap- 
tism presupposes the absence of right in the infant to private 
judgment, and hence cannot be regarded as contrary to any 
inherent and inalienable right. The infant has no inaliena- 
ble right to remain till he can choose a standard of private 
judgment for himself, nor can the parent innocently neglect 
his religious education during the immaturity of his reason, 
and infancy of his moral powers. The objection founded 
upon the imagined right of infants to private judgment is as 
much in force against applying any system of sound morals 
in educating children, as it is against administering baptism 
to infants : if it be usurpation in the latter case, it is in the 
former. Obligation is prior to the act of volition. Choice 
does not originate obligation, but obligation is to determine 
choice. Baptism recognises obligation existing prior to the 
act of volition, and imposes on the subject the duty of dis- 
charging the original obligati6n, according to the principles 
and truths of the gospel. That is, without baptism, the in- 
fant is under obligation when it grows up to lead a holy life 
■ — this obligation exists independently of baptism — ^baptism 



OBJECTIONS FOUNDED ON RIGHT, ETC. 375 

merely recognises this obligation in a public, formal, and 
solemn manner, importing, independently of personal choice, 
the moral obligation of the infant under the gospel adminis- 
tration. The sense of responsibility lies at the foundation 
of the human mind; consequently God can justly and 
properly impose responsibility on the infant, independently 
of his concurrence and volition. Thus, baptism implies ob- 
ligation not found in consent, but prior to the exercise of 
the will, and hence baptism implies no violation of the right 
of private judgment, and therefore, in the case of infants, is 
not contrary to the word of Grod. And let it be observed 
also, that the obligations of the parents to attend to the bap- 
tism of their children is prior to, and independent of, the 
undeveloped consent of the children. 

Again, if the exercise of volition is necessary to originate 
and impose obligation, then infants are not bound by human 
laws, nor by parental obligation, nor by the authority of 
God himself, since infants never sanctioned the social com- 
pact, nor chose their parents, nor consented to the authority 
of God, and thus by a single bold stroke, all obligations to 
parents, to guardians, to masters, to the social compact, and 
to God himself, are absolutely annulled for ever; and every 
will in the universe, upon the same principle, may assume 
with impunity, absolute and eternal independence. '^Man 
is really born, fostered, taught, and governed, with little or 
no regard to his own will. And even in respect to civil 
government, the greater part of the circumstances of a man's 
condition exist before Mm, and independently of him : for 
example, the institutions, the laws, the customs, the character 
of the nation in which he must share, and by which his 
own habits and actions are mainly regulated. And his re- 
lation to the government being determined by these external 
facts, and not by himself, it seems to be a groundless and 
inapplicable fiction, to speak of that relation as founded upon 



376 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



a contract, to which lie is a party." WhewelFs Elements of 
Morality, vol. ii. 216, 217. 

Secondly. Unconsciousness does not divest the infant of 
a saving interest in the atonement of Christ, unless you can 
prove that his interest depends upon the knowledge of the 
design of the atonement, reliance upon it, and admission of 
moral obligation ; in which case, you would make infant 
salvation conditional, and hence infant damnation inevitable. 
Iguorance does not invalidate the title of the infant to salva- 
tion, and hence can be no obstacle to his baptism. A Jew- 
ish writer observes, ^' One may privilege a person, though 
he is incapable of knowing it; but one ought not to dis- 
privilege a person without his knowledge" — as the Baptists 
do in withholding baptism from infants on account of their 
unconsciousness, or inability to exercise intelligible volition. 

Thirdly. Children can enter into covenant with the Lord. 
'^ Ye stand all of you this day before the Lord your God — 
your little onesj TO enter into covenant with the Lord 
YOUR GrOD." ^ " Kead all the words of the law, the bless- 
ings and the cursings, according to all that is written in the 
book of the law to the little ones." ^ The covenant was 
made with infants to be applicable in adult years. ^^The 
Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The 
Lord made not a covenant with our fathers, but with us, 
eveii us, who are all of us here alive this day J' "^ This 
covenant had been, made with these adult Jews thirty years 
before this time, when many of them at least were infants. 
Such is the arrangement of Infinite Wisdom, whereby in- 
fants are made passive parties to the covenant, and is a con- 
clusive and impressive refutation of the objection under 
consideration. And so Gregory Nazianzen says, ^^Hast 
thou an infant child? Let him he dedicated from his 

^ Deut. xxix. 11, 12. 6 Josh. viii. 34, 35. ^ peut. v. 2, 3. 



377 

cradle^' — enter into covenant with Grod, which, can be done 
formally in no other way than by baptism. Under the 
Mosaic dispensation, children, at the age of three years, 
were considered capable of covenanting with Grod, and were 
admitted as members of the Jewish church. At three 
years of age, Samuel ^^ worshipped the Lord."« Timothy, 
from his infancy, knew the Holy Scriptures. ^ Would the 
apostles have refused baptism to such children as these? 
Should we refuse baptism to such children? 

Fourthly. The same objection might have been urged as 
forcibly against circumcision under the Jewish dispensation, 
and yet would not have been sufficient to cause its neglect. 

We may consider this objection in another form. "Per- 
sons baptized in infancy, in after years may become dissatis- 
fied with their baptism. '^ And so persons baptized in adult 
years . sometimes become dissatisfied with their baptism. 
Abstract dissatisfaction is no more valid in one case than in 
the other. Besides, the mere jpossihility that the adult will 
become dissatisfied with his infant baptism, is far from being 
sufficient to set aside the whole weight of testimony in favor 
of infant baptism — a weight of testimony which enforces the 
most solemn duty — and the possibility of dissatisfaction can 
never lessen, much less release wholly from obligation. But 
let us carefully consider the reasons by which the adult justi- 
fies his dissatisfaction. His doubts may be thus stated : " I 
have been baptized in infancy, and though I believe the 
mode to be wholly non-essential, yet as I had no hand in 
my baptism, I consider it invalid. And yet if I could sanc- 
tion and adopt my infant baptism as my act, I would give 
up all my scruples at once on the subject.^' The whole 
statement then of the objection is this: — In order to the 
validity of baptism, it is assumed, that the subject must be 



8 1 Sam. i. 28; ii. 11. 9 2 Tim. iii. 15. 

32* 



378 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERlii,. 



conscious of its administration, understand its nature, design, 
and obligation, and with such knowledge, he for himself, 
must voluntarily submit to it, otherwise it is not his act, and 
hence is not valid. As this objection is one of a most per- 
plexing nature to some minds, we shall endeavor satis- 
factorily to analyze and answer it. 

In infancy you were entitled to all the blessings of salva- 
tion on the ground of Christ's atonement, and hence at that 
time you were unconditionally entitled to baptism, the out- 
ward sign a'nd seal of such title. But you forfeited your 
title to salvation subsequently by disobedience and unbelief; 
and yet a short time since, you believed in Christ, and were 
pardoned, and so recovered the title to salvation which you 
had unconditionally in infancy; and which your infant hap- 
tism set forth. Why then desire to have your baptism 
repeated? Take the case of conversion, baptism, and back- 
sliding in the adult — of one converted, say, at twenty years 
of age, who continues faithful, backslides at thirty years, 
continues a backslider five years, tlien repents, believes, and 
is pardoned again — what now are his views, and what is his 
duty respecting baptism ? Why he goes back to his former 
justified and happy state, and sanctions his baptism ad- 
ministered fifteen years before. And so in infancy you 
were baptized, because you had then an unconditional title 
to salvation — in adult years you forfeited this title, and re- 
mained an ^lien from the commonwealth of Israel to the 
present time; but now you have believed, and so. recovered 
the title you had in infancy, and which was set forth by 
baptism in infancy. The very same relation which the 
reclaimed backslider sustains to his adult baptism, the adult 
believer sustains to his infant baptism. Alas, that you 
should complain of a divine privilege, and strive to invali- 
date a right you possessed independently of your knowledge ! 
But yet^you can obtain your wish in this matter. You can 



OBJECTIONS FOUNDED ON RIGHT, ETC. 379 



have just as much hand in your infant baptism as you could 
have had in your adult baptism. This we shall now set 
forth. 1. Why haptism should not he repeated. In bap- 
tism, the subject assumes all the obligations connected with 
the everlasting covenant. The violation of the laws of the 
kingdom of Grod after baptism does not annul the obliga- 
tions assumed in baptism. Why then repeat baptism? 
The import of baptism extends through life, and is co-ex- 
tensive with the time, and corresponds to the character of 
probation. When a man is naturalized, and takes the oath 
of allegiance, he thereby pledges himself to keep the laws 
of the land so long as he lives in the country : the infraction 
of the laws of the land in any instance does not annul the 
obligations involved in the oath of allegiance — his obliga- 
tions still continue, and hence the oath of allegiance need 
not to be repeated. ^° Baptism is a federal act, as circum- 
cision was, and imposes obligation to keep the whole of the 
law. When the law was violated, God was reconciled, not 
by the repetition of circumcision, but by appointed sacrifices. 
So baptism, as a badge of profession, as a seal of the cove- 
nant, as a federal act, brings the subject under obligation to 
keep the whole law of grace, whereby he becomes a debtor 
to the law to the end of life : and whenever sin is committed, 
the great sacrifice offered on Calvary, by faith becomes the 
procuring cause of forgiveness and spiritual blessings. Cir- 
cumcision was never repeated to a Jew. The ceremony of 
initiation was never repeated to a proselyte. 2. In baptism 
God pledges himself to bestow upon the subject, continuing 
faithful, all the blessings of his everlasting covenant, in 



1° It may be observed, if baptism be the condition of remission of sins, 
then, in every case of actual sin, baptism should be repeated; but from 
the character of baptism as above, it ought not to be repeated, which is 
fatal to the dogma of baptismal regeneration. 



380 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



time and eternity. Baptism is the standing seal on the part 
of God of the whole covenant of grace, having a prospective 
reference to the whole duty of man, during the time of his 
probation, so that a repetition of it would not only be un- 
necessary, but profane. In the case of backsliding, the sub- 
ject of baptism, upon repentance and faith, returns to the 
discharge of his obligations assumed in baptism, and conse- 
quently there is no more necessity for rebaptism in his case 
than if he had continued faithful from the moment of his 
conversion and baptism. The faithfulness of the subject is 
a matter to be tested, and time and opportunity must be 
granted him, and hence a repetition of baptism could but 
repeat a pledge already given, and which . had not yet been 
consummated. Baptism has reference to future obligation 
and the final reward ; rebaptism can have no other reference, 
and hence rebaptism implies insincerity on the part of man, 
and want of faithfulness on the part of Grod. The advocates 
for rebaptism are led into error by not perceiving the extent 
of obligations involved in baptism — obligations extending 
through the whole life^ on the part of man, connected with a 
standing title to the final reward on the part of Grod : and 
so for a double reason, baptism ought not to be repeated. 
Such is the character of infant baptism. 3. A sign is de- 
signed to prefigure some future thing, as is proved by 
reference to the nature of the Jewish dispensation. Thus, 
baptism in infancy is designed to set forth the child's right 
to salvation, and in case of death in infancy, or conversion 
in after years, to set forth spiritual baptism, and consequent 
right to all the blessings of the atonement and privileges 
of the church. All then in this case that I have to do, is 
to go back and sanction my baptism administered in infancy 
— and this is my duty, as well as a privilege. I could do 
no more than sa«c<io/^ ^baptism administered in adult age. 
4. There are two rights set forth in infant baptism — that of 



OBJECTIONS FOUNDED ON RIGHT, ETC. 381 



the infant to all the blessings of the atonement, and that of 
Christ to the infant. These rights are acknowledged at the 
time of baptism by the church, and subsequently the subject 
himself asserts his right to the blessings of the atonement, 
and acknowledges the right of Christ to him. In passing 
from childhood through life, there is a point where uncon- 
ditional salvation ends, and moral responsibility begins. 
At this point, or subsequently, the child, or adult, may 
sanction, confirm, and continue, and should do so by his own 
personal faith, his right set forth in infant baptism. Placed 
upon his own responsibility, all that is necessary for the con- 
firmation and continuation of his original right is, that he 
heartily subscribe to the conditions of his baptism, acknow- 
ledge Christ's right to him, embrace his right to Christ, 
and continue by faith and good works what he uncon- 
ditionally possessed in infancy. I can just as fully and 
satisfactorily sanction a right setting forth my title to Christ, 
and his to me, after, as before, or at its administration — ^yea, 
the more so, it seems to me, after its administration than 
before, since by my faith, I voluntarily continue a right 
possessed unconditionally in infancy. 5. The time of sanc- 
tioning baptism is non-essential. A freeborn infant is en- 
titled to all the blessings of freedom. These blessings ho 
may forfeit in subsequent life, by a violation of the law 
which secures them, or he may appropriate and enjoy theiQ 
by obedience to the law: thus what he enjoyed in infancy 
unconditionally, he now enjoys conditionally. You are a 
freeman. Will any one say, that you are any more entitled 
to freedom now than when in infancy ? You were free by 
relation, and have continued your right to freedom by the 
discharge of the necessary conditions. And yet you are no 
more free to-day than you were in infancy. In a similar 
manner, in view of the atonement of Christ, you were born 
unconditionally entitled to all the blessings of salvation. 



382 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



which title you can confirm by subsequent faith and obe- 
dience, or forfeit by actual transgression. Baptism was the 
outward sign and seal of your title in infancy; faith is the 
condition of your title in adult age; and hence faith con- 
firms the design of baptism administered in infancy, while 
you voluntarily sanction the obligations of the rite adminis- 
tered at that time. As a freeman, going into another coun- 
try, does not forfeit his original title to the privileges of his 
native land, but may return at any time, and be recognised 
as a free citizen, without the usual preliminaries of natural- 
ization; so the adult, baptized in infancy, by hearty repent- 
ance and faith, may sanction his infant baptism, recover his 
original title, and enjoy all the blessings of salvation to 
which he was unconditionally entitled in infancy. Thus, all 
along the same character is maintained, and hence the time 
of baptism is non-essential; only it should be administered 
as soon as possible. 

A second illustration may be drawn from the atonement 
of Christ, which had a retrospective as well as prospective 
reference. The old world looked forward to it, we look 
back to it : in both cases it is equally efl&cacious — extending 
salvation to us this day, more than eighteen hundred years 
after it was made, as well as to those who looked foward to 
it in faith more than four thousand years before the coming 
of Christ. Faith in the atonement,^ and not the time of 
the atonement, is the condition of salvation. And so the 
time of baptism is non-essential; the will of the adult be- 
liever may sanction baptism administered in infancy, as well 
as in adult age, as the case may be, with equal validity. 
- And so we conclude, the adidt heliever, who has been bap- 
tized in infancy, may look back to his infant baptism, and 
sanction it as his baptism, acknowledge and subscribe to the 
divine proprietorship therein set forth, confirm and continue 
his title to all the covenanted mercies of the atonement, of 



OBJECTIONS FOUNDED ON RIGHT, ETC. 38cJ 

V)hich baptism was the sign and seal in infancy^ and tlivs 
justly and safely consider himself legally and properly ini- 
tiated into the external and spiritual church of Christ, under 
the Christian dispensation, as the adult Jew regarded him- 
self in church relations under the Jewish dispensation, in 
view of his infant circumcision, and subsequent faith and 
obedience. The infant is unconditionally entitled to bap- 
tism : the adult believer continues that right by faith : hence 
the adult believer, baptized in infancy, has a right to church 
membership, and all the privileges, institutions, and blessings 
of the external and spiritual church of Christ without the 
necessity of repeated baptism. The whole question then 
turns upon the validity of infant baptism. If you believe 
in its validity, in the very nature of things, you could not 
sanction it at the time it was administered. Do you deny 
the validity of infant baptism ? No. Then your scruples 
are groundless, and the objection must be relinquished. 

Children circumcised under the Mosaic dispensation were 
thereby formally and solemnly obligated from the earliest 
responsible period, to observe the whole law, moral, cere- 
monial, and civil: ^^ Every man,^' says the apostle, "that is 
circumcised is a debtor to the whole law.'' So children 
baptized under the Christian dispensation are formally and 
solemnly obligated, from the earliest responsible period, to 
observe the whole law, moral and evangelical : and this obli- 
gation, as in the case of the infant Jew, extends through all 
subsequent life. And children under the Christian dis- 
pensation have no more right to say whether they will be 
placed under such obligation, than the infant Jew had, 
under the Mosaic dispensation. To deny this, is to reflect 
upon the wisdom and sovereignty of God in the institution 
of circumcision. "Circumcision verily profiteth, if thou 
keep the law" — but infants could not keep the law; there- 
fore they were to keep the law when they arrived at a re- 



384 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED 



sponsible age: so in the case of baptism. ^^But if tbou be 
u breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircum- 
cision" — but infants could not break the law; therefore the 
law was to be in force when they arrived at a responsible 
age: so in the case of baptism. Baptism in infancy as 
much refers to obligation in subsequent life as circumcision 
did in the case of the infant Jew. Besides, infants are born 
parties to the everlasting covenant, and therefore their con- 
sent to become a party to it is not required of them — they 
are that already. Moreover, baptism does not involve neiv 
obligations, but is a formal recognition of obligations already 
existing; not a solitary duty is implied in baptism which 
did not antecedently exist. The principle on which infants 
are bound in covenant with God, without their knowledge 
or consent, we repeat, is thus set forth in the Scriptures: 
''Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your Grod; 
your captains of your tribes, your elders, and youx officers, 
with all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and 
thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy 
wood unto the drawer of thy water; that thou shouldst enter 
into covenant with the Lord thy Grod, and into his oath, 
which the Lord thy G-od maketh with thee this day ; that he 
may establish thee to-day for a people unto himself, and that 
he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and 
as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, 
and to Jacob. Neither with you only do I make this cove- 
nant and this oath, but with him that standeth here with 
us this day before the Lord our God, a?id also with him 

THAT IS not here WITH US THIS DAY.'' Deut. xxix. 

10-15. ''Little ones,'' and "him that standeth here with 
us this day" — the present generation, from the youngest to 
the oldest member of it. "And also him that is not here 
with us this day" — all future generations. Now if the 
supremacy and authority of Jehovah can be denied, and 



OBJECTIONS FOUNDED ON RIGHT, ETC. 385 



controversy with him be successfully maintained, and obli- 
gation to him annulled, then the doctrine of infant baptism 
may be cancelled; otherwise, as the seal of the everlasting 
covenant, it may as properly be conferred upon infants, under 
the Christian dispensation, without their knowledge or con- 
sent, as circumcision, the seal of the everlasting covenant, 
was conferred upon infants, under the Jewish dispensation, 
without their knowledge or consent. Hannah dedicated her 
son to God without his knowledge or consent, and Grod ac- 
cepted the act. I will go further. This objection is infi- 
delity in its most arrogant form. It cancels all obligation 
of man to Grod. It is opposed, as we have stated, to the re- 
ligious education of children without their consent. It 
annuls the obligation of parents to instruct their children, 
and the obligation of children to obey their parents. It in- 
vests the free agency of man with right to pursue with im- 
punity a life polluted with every vice in the catalogue of 
crime. If followed out to its legitimate results, it would 
revolutionize the government of Grod throughout his moral 
universe. If followed out to its legitimate results, it would 
justify treason and rebellion, and overturn every civil go- 
vernment on earth. Responsibility no more depends upon 
consent in the infant, than creation does, for in the nature 
of things consent is impossible. He is created a rational 
being, and therefore responsibility is essentially involved in 
his creation, and baptism formally recognises this responsi- 
bility. Consequently the essential constitution of mind 
must be revolutionized, the import of moral powers can- 
celled, the authority of moral law invalidated, and the su- 
premacy of God repudiated, before the appropriateness and 
importance of infant baptism can be denied. 

33 



386 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



CHAPTER IV. 

OBJECTIONS OF A COLLATERAL CHARACTER CONSIDERED 

There are several objections of a collateral character, 
which we will now consider. 

1. ^' Infants of unbelieving parents ought not to be bap- 
tized, because there is none on whose faith baptism can be 
administered." 

First. The child has a right to baptism, not in view of 
the faith of the parents, but in view of the atonement of 
Christ, since the same ground that entitles him to salvation, 
entitles him also to baptism. 

Secondly. The evangelical form of the covenant has no- 
thing in it of a temporal character, as in the Abrahamic 
form of the covenant. Under the Jewish dispensation it 
was indispensable that the parents should be Jews in order 
to entitle children to circumcision, because the covenant 
partly referred to temporal blessings, embraced in the land 
of Canaan. In view of specific temporal, as well as spiritual 
blessings promised, none but the children of Jews were cir- 
cumcised, while those who became proselytes were circum- 
cised in view of the spiritual advantages alone connected 
with the Jewish dispensation. But under the gospel dis- 
pensation, this temporal restriction or limitation is removed, 
and consequently, all the children in the world, and in all 
periods of time, are equally entitled to baptism, since no- 
thing but spiritual blessings are set forth by baptism, and 
spiritual blessings are unconditionally obtained for all in- 
tants by the atonement of Christ. 



INFANTS OF UNBELIEVING PARENTS. 387 



2. ^^Both parents do not sanction infant baptism — ought 
the approving parent to have the child baptized V 

First. Abstract objections or sanctions of either or both 
of the parents no more affect the child's right to baptism, 
than they do his right to salvation, and Christ's right to 
the child in baptism. These rights of the infant and of 
Christ are evangelical in their nature, and therefore inde- 
pendent of natural relations. If the child be denied right 
to baptism, it must be on the ground of Adam's offence, as 
Adam was the federal representative of the human race 
under the paradisaical law; but the condemnation involved 
in Adam's transgression, which must otherwise have de- 
prived infants of salvation as well as baptism, has been re- 
moved by the atonement of Christ in the case of all infants, 
and so the title of all infants to both salvation and baptism 
has been hereby secured and established for ever. That is, 
the only natural relation that could have deprived children 
of baptism is that which they sustain legally to Adam; but 
this relation has been graciously adjusted by the atonement 
of Christ, whereby every child sustains such a moral, 
gracious relation to God through Christ, as involves in it a 
title to baptism. It is this relation through Christ, the 
second Adam from heaven, that gives the children of unbe- 
lieving parents a title to baptism. Hence, the approval or 
disapproval of one or both of the parents cannot annul the 
absolute and independent right of the child to baptism. 

Secondly. The objection of either or both the parents to 
the circumcision of their children, under the Jewish dis- 
pensation, could not in the least respect affect their right to 
circumcision. Such opposition would have incurred the 
double guilt of rebellion against Grod, and great injury to 
the child. Under the Christian dispensation therefore, and 
for stronger reasons, the opposition or sanction of either or 



OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



both of the parents, in no manner affects the real right of 
their children to baptism. 

3. "If infants ought to be baptized, they ought also to 
be admitted to the Lord's supper.'^ 

As the passover has been succeeded by the Lord's supper, 
and circumcision by baptism; and as those who were oat- 
cumcised in infancy were not admitted to the passover till 
they were able to understand its signification; so under the 
Christian dispensation, those who are baptized in infancy 
have no right to the holy eucharist till they are able to 
understand its meaning. The testimony on this subject is 
abundant. " The passover, which has now been succeeded 
by the sacred supper, did not admit guests of all descrip- 
tions promiscuously; but was rightly eaten only by those 
who were of sufficient age to inquire into its signification." ^ 
" The law forbids the son to eat of the sacrifice before he 
has come to the temple, and there presented an offering to 
Grod."'' "Till a child was twelve years old, he was not ob- 
liged to go to Jerusalem at the time of the passover."^ 
And so Poole ; " Children at the age of twelve years were 
brought by their parents to the temple; and from that time 
they began to eat of the passover and other sacrifices." 
Bishop Patrick observes, " When children were twelve years 
old, their parents were bound to bring them to the temple 
at the passover, where seeing what was done, they would be 
led to inquire. What mean ye by these things?" And so 
Dr. Doddridge : " The males were not brought to the temple 
till they were twelve years of age." And Dr. Gill, a learned 
Baptist writer, bears testimony : " According to the maxims 
of the Jews, persons were not obliged to the duties of the 
law, or subject to its penalties in case of non-performance, 



1 Calvin's Inst. b. iv., c. 16. sec. 30. 2 Josephus, lib. xii., c. 4. 

3 Stackhouse, Hist. Bible, book viii., c. 1. 



INFANT COMMUNION CONSIDERED. 389 



until they were, a female, at the age of twelve years and one 
day, and a male, at the age of thirteen years and one day.'^" 
And so Luke says of Jesus, ^'And when he was twelve 
years old, they went up to Jerusalem, after the custom of the 
feast." Thus, as infants under the Jewish dispensation 
were not entitled to participation in the passover, in view 
of their circumcision, independently of other considerations, 
so under the Christian dispensation, infants are not invested 
with right to partake of the Lord's supper, solely in view of 
their baptism. Right to the holy eucharist is founded 
upon faith and a new creature; but baptism, in the case of 
infants, is a privilege founded solely upon the atonement of 
Christ, without faith and a new nature, yet prospectively 
referring to the obligations of faith and the duty of seek- 
ing a new nature. The Lord's supper is to be taken by 
those only who can ^^ discern the Lord's body'' therein by 
faith, with a grateful ^^remembrance'' of his atoning sacri- 
fice, and an humble commemoration of his "death till he 
come again." With regard to baptism, no distinction of 
age is made in the Scriptures; but with respect to the par- 
ticipation of the Lord's supper, the distinction above is 
clearly made. There is such an essential difference between 
these two sacraments in their nature and design, that in the 
case of infants there is no connection between them. If 
therefore the objection is based upon analogy, it is over- 
thrown at once by the considerations, that children under 
the Jewish dispensation did not partake of the passover till 
they were twelve years old; that a proper understanding, 
with faith and gratitude, is indispensable to the proper ob- 
servance of the holy eucharist; and that, under the Chris- 
tian dispensation, many children, both male and female, 
understand the meaning, and partake of the sacrament in 
the proper spirit before they are twelve years of age. 

* Comment on Luke ii. 42. 
33* 



390 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



In other words, the right of baptized infants to the Lord's 
supper is prospective, and is involved in the gradation of 
capacity for the enjoyment of church privileges, and the 
blessings of the everlasting covenant. As in civil society, 
the constitution and laws guarantee to infants a certain and 
adequate amount of privilege, and this amount is enlarged 
when they arrive at a lawful age; so under the covenant of 
grace, when they arrive at a suitable age, and attain the 
requisite capacity to '^examine themselves and discern the 
Lord's body," and confirm their original right by faith and 
a corresponding life, they are admitted to the enjoyment of 
additional privileges in the church of Grod, under the cove- 
nant of grace. It is admitted, "that infant communion is 
an ancient practice of the church." Of course then infant 
baptism is an ancient practice too, and must have been prior 
to the practice of infant communion, as the Baptists them- 
selves would not permit any one to commune who had not 
been baptized. But the practice of infant communion never 
became universal— ^2^^ not in existence in the days of Poly- 
carp, Irenseus, Justin Martyr, and Origen — and was always 
opposed, till it was finally put down in the West, where it 
originated. Any one who will examine church history, will 
find the time when infant communion was commenced, how 
it was opposed by the church, and when it was abandoned 
by the churches that began it — hut no such origin can he 
found for infant haptism, and it has never heen ahandoned. 

4. "Infant baptism is a part of popery, and is the basis 
of national churches and worldly establishments. Dr. Gill 
called infant baptism the main ground and pillar of popery, 
and a great number of Baptists are of the same opinion." ^ 

In the first place, infant baptism was practised several 
hundred years before popery existed. Secondly, it is prac- 

5 Robinson's Hist, of Baptism, p. 408, 



INFANT BAPTISM NO PART OF POPERY. 391 



tised in those churches that are not and never were under 
the dominion of the pope. Thirdly, infant baptism was 
practised long before national churches existed in the world 
Fourthly, civil law gives being to national churches, and 
national establishments depend altogether upon other causes 
for their origin and continuance than the one pretended in 
this objection. Fifthly, the union of the church and state, 
in all instances, is to be ascribed to the spirit of compromise. 
Sixthly, the abolition of the practice of infant baptism would 
not break up the foundation of national churches, nor pre- 
vent their origin in future. 

5. "Infant baptism serves greatly to corrupt the church.'^ 
Facts refute the unjust allegation. Go examine the psedo- 
bastist churches throughout Christendom, and the children 
of pasdobaptist parents, from early age through all periods 
of subsequent life, will be found inferior in no respect to 
the children of Baptist parents. In every relation in so- 
ciety, personal, social, and civil; in every relation in the 
church, ordinary or official; in every period of life, child- 
hood, youth, manhood, old age; in every pursuit of honor, 
usefulness, and eminence; and in every commendable and 
noble enterprise that renders the present age conspicuous, 
the paedobaptist churches are in no respect behind their 
Baptist brethren. It is a matter of common observation, 
that in powerful and extensive revivals in paedobaptist 
churches, very few persons are baptized — ^unless they are of 
Baptist parentage. Inded, it is an obvious and most re- 
markable fact, that revivals generally embrace the youthful 
portions of the church, and the great majority of children 
and youth converted in revivals are those who have been 
baptized in infancy — have these been corrupted by their 
baptism ? Properly instructed by pious parents, and piously 
educated at the altars of the church, as soon as they arrive 
at the proper age, God, it seems, expressive of his approval 



892 OBJECTIONS TO INFAIfx' BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



of their dedication to hiin in early baptism, receives them 
by faith into his spiritual church, as his ^'faithful and elect 
children." And I may inquire just here, is the same large 
proportion of children of Baptist parents, at the same early 
age, in these days brought into the fold of Christ? Or are 
the great majority converted in adult age? And even then, 
are they not, in large proportion, converted in the paedo- 
baptist churches, and received finally among their old friends 
and parents in the Baptist Church ? Are any corruptions 
that may be found in the paedobaptist churches to be traced 
to infant baptism? Then all corruptions found in the Bap- 
tist church, such as exclusive immersion, restricted or close 
communion, bigotry, and any false doctrine, are to be traced 
to opposition to infant baptism. The argument is as good in 
one case as in the other; indeed, upon a careful analysis, 
the argument will be found to be wholly false in the former 
case, but to a great extent strictly true in the latter case. 

It is admitted that infant baptism has been abused, but 
the fault lies in the conduct of its advocates, and its oppo- 
nents have taken advantage of the abuse. But it is easy to 
see that there is an essential difference between the doctrine 
of baptism and the abuse of the doctrine. If the doctrine 
were properly appreciated and observed, incalculable bless- 
ings would follow in the conversion of thousands of our 
young people, and but few opponents would arise against it. 
The neglect, indifference, and inconsistency of its friends, 
have done incalculably more to discredit it, than all the 
arguments, sarcasms, and opposition of its enemies have 
accomplished against it. Whatever of abuse and corrup- 
tion that may arise from infant baptism, is not to be ascribed 
to the intrinsic nature of the ordinance, but to the depravity 
of man. The other sacrament has been more abused than 
infant baptism, and adult baptism itself, in the Baptist 
church as well as elsewhere, has, no doubt, frequently been 



INFERENCES. 39B 



perverted to tlie purposes of ambitioii and 'selfishness; and 
yet all this does not destroy the general principle and validity 
of the sacrament. 

6. ^' But if all parents should have their children baptized, 
the whole world would be introduced into the church." 
True, and happy world, when all the children can be brought 
up in the church, under the moral and holy obligations of 
baptism administered in infancy. There is no better place 
under heaven in which to instruct the children than the 
church of Christ. But if the objection presupposes that 
all persons baptized in infancy have a right to association 
with the church, and are recognised as having this right in 
subsequent life, notwithstanding the rebellion of subsequent 
life, and the violation of the obligations contained in infant 
baptism, it proceeds upon false premises. This right may 
be forfeited by subsequent actual transgression, and hence 
none who were baptized in infancy are admitted into the 
church in adult age, unless they give proof that they have 
continued or recovered their original title by repentance, 
faith, and good works. 

7. ^^If infants are members oi*the church by birth, and are 
not baptized, they forfeit their membership; and hence, on 
the paedobaptist principle, all unbaptized children are ex- 
cluded from the church of Grod and therefore lost." 

It is not maintained that infants are members of the 
' spiritual church " by faith," but by virtue of the vicarious 
death of Christ, and this membership cannot be forfeited by 
the neglect of baptism in their case. Baptism recognises 
this right as already existing, and the right still exists 
though they remain unbaptized, and consequently, dying in 
infancy, they are not " lost," The neglect of Itheir baptism 
on the part of parents does not dissolve their connection with 
Christ's atonement, and association with Christ's spiritual 
church. It is true, if they are not baptized, they do forfeit 



894 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



their membership in Christ's visible church, and their right 
to external church privileges. So the uncircumcised infant 
Jew, by the command of Grod ^^ should he cut off from Ms 
people" that is, ^' cut off/^ from the external, visible church 
- — forfeit right to participate in the passover and other cere- 
monial exercises of the Jewish church; but dying in in- 
fancy he was not thereby lost. The child of David died 
before he was eight days old, and therefore before he was 
circumcised, and yet he was not lost, for David, in his grief 
and fasting, was comforted with the belief, that he " should 
go to him.'' The penitent thief on the cross was saved, 
though he was never baptized, and was never associated with 
Christ's visible church. If the objection be admitted, every 
unbaptized believer must be lost. The objection proceeds 
upon the ground that baptism is saving in its nature, or in- 
dispensable to salvation. This is the old Romish heresy of 
baptismal regeneration. 

8. "If children of Christian parents are born members of 
the church, they have no need of baptism — they belong to 
the church without it, and it becomes a work of supereroga- 
tion." 

In the first place, because children are born members of 
the church, is the very reason why they have a right to bap- 
tism. The objection admits the very ground on which in- 
fants are entitled to baptism. The argument, if admitted, 
and applied to the case of adult believers, would render 
their baptism needless, or as "a work of supererogation." 
"If adult believers are born members of the church, they 
have no need of baptism, they belong to the church without 
it, and it becomes a work of supererogation.'' Now "he 
that helievethji]i2ii Jesus is the Christ is horn of Grod," and 
is at once united with the spiritual church ; and hecause he 
is thus born a member of the church, he is entitled to bap- 
tism. But if because the infant "belongs to the church 



INFERENCES. 395 



without'^ baptism, there is "no need'' of baptism in his case, 
so because the adult believer '^belongs to the church with- 
out" baptism, there is "no need" of baptism in his case 
also — a conclusion that excludes baptism from the Christian 
dispensation altogether. 

Secondly, baptism does not constitute, but recognises and 
certifies a right already existing : in the case of the infant, 
it sacramentally certifies a right, already existing, to all the 
blessings of the everlasting covenant ; and in the case of the 
adult believer, it sacramentally certifies the same thing. 

In closing the consideration of the most prominent and 
important objections ordinarily urged against infant bap- 
tism, we are led to the following inferences. 

1. Persons baptized in infancy ought not to he rehaptized 
in subsequent life. Fearful parents sometimes say, "That 
in view of scruples that may arise in the minds of their 
children in adult age, they think it best to omit baptism in 
infancy, and leave the whole subject to the management of 
the children in subsequent life.'' We say, first, to the pa- 
rents — If you do your whole duty in properly instructing the 
children^ they will never be embarrassed respecting their 
infant baptism. The scrupulous fear that they will not 
sanction their baptism, and continue their rights set forth in 
baptism, is not a sufficient ground for the neglect of your 
duty, and withholding from them their right in this matter — 
especially, too, since hereby you neglect a duty you owe to 
Christ and his church. We reply, secondly, to those who 
have been baptized in infancy, and are now dissatisfied with 
their baptism — If you will not sanction your infant bap- 
tism, and acknowledge its solemn obligations, then you 
must set it aside; and by so doing you incur a fearful 
responsibility, for you venture to trifle with one of the sacred 
institutions of Christianity in its application to infants; 
and hence incurring as you do such fearful danger, paedo- 



396 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. 



baptist ministers are not willing to be involved with you in 
tbe matter, and so you must have recourse to ministers of a 
different belief on the subject, if you must obtain rebaptism. 
Baptism is the sensible, formal seal of the covenant of grace 
in all its parts, and has as much a federal import on the 
part of God as it has on the part of man. Thus, the cove- 
nant of grace provides, that sins committed after justifica- 
tion, whether in the case of infant or adult justification, shall, 
upon the exercise of repentance and faith, be forgiven; and 
baptism is a seal of this promise or feature of the covenant. 
Hence there is no necessity of rebaptism in the case of a 
person baptized in infancy or in adult age. 

2. The impropi'iety of excluding the following persons 
from the Lord's supper : — First, the adult believer, who was 
baptized in infancy, and sanctions his baptism as valid and 
sufficient, and continues or recovers his original title by 
justifying faith and obedience. Secondly, the adult believer 
who was not baptized in infancy, but in adult age. Thirdly, 
all persons who give satisfactory evidence that they are the 
children of God, though there has been no opportunity to 
attend to baptism in their cases. The mode of baptism in 
no respect enters into the question of right or qualification 
in the premises. 



PART V. 

Imefits 0f Infant '§^im, mli i\t ^Mtnim 0f 
Cptotn in gaitism a §0kmn gntj. 



CHAPTER I. 

BENEFITS OF INFANT BAPTISM. 

I CANNOT close tliese remarks without mentioning some 
of the benefits of infant baptism. The question is often 
proposed by the Baptists, "What benefit, what benefit in 
infant baptism? What good is derived by unconscious 
babes in baptism ?'' 

1. It witnesses to the world that the child has a title to 
salvation, and God's gracious dealings "are declared among 
the people." 

2. It sets forth in a solemn and impressive manner the 
fact that infants are affected by the fall of Adam, and em- 
braxjed in the salvation of Christ. It may be replied here, 
"that infants will be saved without baptism." True, that 
will be the good fortune of all that die in infancy, notwith- 
standing the neglect of parents, since Grod has not made 
their salvation in any respect, dying in infancy, to depend 
on the care or neglect of man toward them, but on the 
meritorious sacrifice of Christ. So the Jewish infant would 
have been saved, had the parents omitted circumcision — ^yet 
the child would have been "cut off from the congregation 
of the Lord" in a civil and ecclesiastical sense. It is not so 

34 397 



398 BENEFITS OF INFANT BAPTISM. 



much the child, dying in infancy, that is injured by with- 
holding baptism, as it is God, whose title to that child had 
not been formally acknowledged; and the child living, 
whose title according to the everlasting covenant, had not 
been set forth to the world, in view of his living and arriv- 
ing at responsible age. Because the child dying in in- 
fancy is saved, is no vindication or excuse for omitting bap- 
tism. Thus, though infants, dying in infancy, will be saved 
without baptism, baptism sets forth the fact, that while they 
are affected by the fall of Adam, they are embraced in the 
salvation of Christ, and living, and proving faithful^ are 
entitled to the blessings of that salvation. 

3. They are capable of receiving a blessing at the hands 
of Christ; for -^he laid his hands on them and blessed them,'' 
though they did not understand what Christ meant when he 
put his hands upon them. And surely they are capable of 
receiving some benefit from the ordinance of Christ. The 
covenant of grace is a deed of gift, signed by the blood of 
Christ, and the New Testament may be considered as his 
last will and testament. "Would a generous father omit the 
names of his children in a deed or will simply because they 
were unconscious of its meaning ? What good is derived by 
unconscious babes from the death of Christ? Why, the 
greatest good in the hands of Grod, namely, "the kingdom 
of heaven. '^ And shall not baptism, an ordinance of Christ, 
convey to the child some of the benefit of his sacrificial 
death ? What harm is inflicted ? What spiritual benefit is 
withheld by it ? What obstacle to early piety, or barrier to 
an exemplary life, is placed in the way ? None whatever. 
Then why all this opposition to infant baptism ? No harm 
ensues, and an ordinance that sets forth the title of the in- 
fant to the greatest good, must be connected with important 
spiritual benefits in its administration. 

If any benefit accrues to the adult in baptism, surely some 



BENEFITS OF INFANT BAPTISM. 399 



benefit must accrue to tlie infant in baptism, who has equal 
right with the adult to baptism : benefits therefore of the 
providence of God, of the grace of Christ, and of the opera- 
tion of the Holy Spirit, must ensue in some sense in the 
case of infant baptism; and if in any sense, it must be a 
subject of the highest importance. And consequently all 
who forbid the little child to receive the ordinance, deserve 
the rebuke and displeasure of the Lord and the disapproba- 
tion of man, since they place a great barrier between the 
child and the church and the special grace and providence 
of God. Since Christ has instituted the sacraments as 
channels of spiritual blessings to the believer, there is no 
reason why baptism may not be a channel of some spiritual 
blessing to the infant without faith. Baptism, whether in 
case of infants or adults, is not a mere form of profession, 
recognition, and initiation, destitute of all blessings, spirit- 
ual, moral, social, and providential; nor does it derive all 
its excellence simply because it is commanded. No rite, Jew- 
ish or Christian, was ever enjoined by command without 
some blessing intended, certain privileges guaranteed, and 
effects accompanying and following corresponding to the 
rite : and such is the essential character and design of bap- 
tism. If no privileges, no good effects be connected with 
baptism, then baptism is a useless ceremony ; if any spiritual 
benefits are connected with baptism, then the infant has as 
good a right to them without faith as the adult has by faith. 
Let it be carefully observed, however, that baptism is 
neither regenerating nor saving. As under the Jewish dis- 
pensation neither the covenant, nor its seal, nor its promises, 
nor its services could save the Jew, without personal faith'; 
so under the Christian dispensation, neither the covenant, 
nor its sacraments, nor its promises, nor its services can 
save the baptized infant in subsequent life, without personal 



400 BENiLFITS OF INFANT BAPTISM. 



faith. Indeed, the whole system of covenants; seals, and 
promises is absolutely null without faith. 

4. Infant baptism is as profitable as circumcision was under 
the Jewish dispensation. '^ For circumcision verily profit- 
eth, if thou keep the law — for every man that is circum- 
cised is a debtor to the whole law.'' Circumcision was 
profitable to the Jew, if in subsequent life he kept the law 
— if in subsequent life he discharged the obligation imposed 
upon him in circumcision in infancy. So baptism profiteth, 
if the infant in subsequent life keep the whole law, moral 
and evangelical, that is, discharge all the obligations im- 
posed under the gospel. In a word, baptism is as profitable 
to the infant who discharges in subsequent life all the obliga- 
tions imposed upon him in baptism, as circumcision was 
profitable to the infant Jew who in subsequent life kept 
the whole law, moral, ceremonial, and civil. The profit of 
circumcision was in keeping the law, and so extended to 
subsequent life; the profit of baptism is in keeping the law 
of the gospel, and so extends to subsequent life: hence, 
there is as much profit in infant baptism as there was in 
infant circumcision. The former cannot be denied without 
denying the latter. The argument of the Baptists may 
be thus stated : " Circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep 
the law: but infants cannot keep the law; therefore their 
uncircumcision must be unprofitable.'' This is rendering a 
positive institution of Grod an absolute nullity, which is a 
reflection upon infinite wisdom. But circumcision is profita- 
ble- — and the argument of the Baptists is a mere sophism; 
and so the same argument against infant baptism is a mere 
sophism. 

The Apostle Paul has stated a case in which baptism is 
unprofitable: ^-But if thou be a breaker of the law, thy 
circumcision is made uncircumcision." That is, circum- 
cision was connected with no good or profit to him who 



BENEFITS or INFANT BAPTISM. 401 



failed to keep the law: so baptism is connected with no 
profit to him, whether infant or adult, who does not keep 
the law of the gtspel. In this case, the question, What 
good? may be properly proposed, and the answer is. None 
at all. That is, if the infant fail to repent, believe, and 
obey the gospel in subsequent life, his baptism is unprofit- 
able. The error of the Baptists is, the prospective profit of 
infant baptism is confounded with some supposed present 
good. The future profit of infant baptism is left out of the 
question, and so the premises that refer only to the present 
fall to the ground. But there are certain present benefits 
connected with infant baptism, which we shall set forth at 
the proper place. We will only add here, with reference to 
the benefit of infant baptism, the language of Paul in reply 
to certain cavillers of circumcision in his day: " What 
profit is there of circumcision? Much every way; biit 
what if some [who had been circumcised in their childhood] 
did not [afterward] believe ? Shall their unbelief make the 
faith of Grod without effect?" — cause Grod to fail to keep his 
promise with those that believe? "Grod forbid; yet let 
God be true, but every man a liar — for circumcision verily 
profiteth, if thou keep the law : but if thou be a breaker of 
the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.'^ 

5. Infant baptism is as profitable as adult baptism. Bap- 
tism is productive of no good to the adult unless he receive 
it with faith; it is faith, and faith only, in the adult, that 
derives any benefit from baptism. That some benefit, we re- 
peat, is connected with infant baptism we have no doubt, 
because every ordinance of Grod properly administered must 
be connected with some spiritual blessing; but whatever 
this spiritual blessing is, we are assured it is not regenera- 
tion, any more in the case of infant baptism than it is in 
adult baptism. The adult believer in baptism receives the 
blessing, or ''answer of a good conscience," and nothing ad- 

34* 



402 BENEFITS OF INFANT BAPTISM. 



ditional only in proportion as he subsequently discharges 
the cDnditions implied in baptism: the infant, in the nature 
of things, cannot receive at the time this i)lessing, or answer 
of a good conscience, but in adult age he may for himself 
sanction his infant baptism, and thus making it his own^ 
enjoy the answer of a good conscience, and then, as in the 
case of the adult, proceed to the discharge of all the con- 
ditions implied in infant baptism. There is therefore no 
more reason why baptism should be denied to the infant, 
than there is that it should be denied to the adult believer. 
It recognises a state at least — that of justification — in both 
cases — ^in the adult by faith, in the infant without faith; it 
imposes the same obligations in both cases; and is a seal to 
the same blessing in both cases; and hence is due to one as 
much as the other. The infant does not receive in baptism, 
or by virtue of his baptism, that grace by which in responsi- 
ble age it may ^'will and do of Grod's good pleasure,'^ for 
this grace is a blessing which Christ has purchased by his 
vicarious death for every man, and is bestowed upon every 
man independently of the exercise of faith, or the reception 
of baptism, or any other consideration in man — an uncon- 
ditional blessing universally bestowed, and is the basis of 
moral responsibility in every man under the covenant of 
grace. All infants indiscriminately receive this grace, by 
which they may be able to repent, believe, do good works, 
and perform all the conditions imposed under the cove- 
nant of grace when they are grown up; and the bestow- 
ment of this grace is formally recognised in every case of 
infant baptism. If the infusion of this grace, which is 
properly called initial or preventing grace, depended upon 
baptism, then an indispensable and important spiritual bless- 
ing would be connected with infant baptism; but the gift 
of this grace is antecedent to, and independent of baptism : 
•'* this is the light that lighteth every man that cometh into 



BENEFITS OP INFANT BAPTISM. 403 



the world"— and "the light" is "the life" of men. The 
possession of this grace places every man under responsi- 
bility to perform the conditions of the covenant of grace, 
which responsibility is formally and solemnly recognised in 
baptism; and hence every child, in the nature of things pos- 
sessing it, should be baptized. The adult by faith, enters 
upon the discharge of these conditions, and hence should be 
baptized, that he may formally and sensibly set forth in the 
sight of Grod and man, that he has entered upon the dis- 
charge of his obligations up. to this time neglected. Thus, 
the adult who has not yet believed, is under obligation to 
believe, and then to be baptized: no one will deny this: 
consequently, every adult who has neither believed nor been 
baptized, has up to this moment neglected 'both duties — the 
antecedent one of faith, and the subsequent one of baptism. 
By actual sin the adult forfeits the justification which he 
possessed in infancy, and faith is indispensable now to the 
recovery of justification; and hence, in the case of the adult, 
faith should precede baptism. When in a state of uncon- 
ditional justification in infancy, he should have been bap- 
tized — it was omitted — subsequently by actual sin he for- 
feited this state of justification — he must now recover this 
state before he is entitled to baptism — this he does by faith 
— and hence faith in the adult not baptized in infancy should 
precede baptism. But the infant is already in a state of 
justification, and hence the antecedence of faith is not appli- 
cable in his case : baptism is a positive formal recognition 
of his present justification and future responsibility, should 
he live. In other words, none will deny, that baptism is a 
formal recognition in the adult believer of his present justifi- 
cation and responsibility during life. But the adult was as 
much under responsibility hefore he believed as he wab 
after he believed — and hence, if infant baptism be struck 
out of the evangelical system, there is no formal recognitiou 



404 BENEFITS OF INFANT BAPTISM. 



of responsibility from infancy up to the time of faith. On 
the part of man, therefore, baptism is a federal act, that ex- 
tends through all life, and hence it should be administered 
in infancy. On the part of Grod, it signifies his faithfulness 
in bestowing initial grace upon all children; and secondly, 
his promise to bestow additional and saving grace subse- 
quently, in every case of repentance and faith: ^^for the 
promise is unto you, and to your children.'^ 

6. Baptism invests the infant with a right to all the 
privileges of the church and blessings of the atonement, 
should he sanction it in subsequent life by faith and obe- 
dience. 

It is often objected, ^'that the child will derive no benefit 
from baptism when he is grown." On the same ground, 
because the adult will not improve his original title to salva- 
tion which he had in infancy, he ought not to have been 
saved had he died in infancy. The benefit, in a great 
measure, depends on the use which the adult makes of his 
infant baptism. Now every properly instructed adult, 
whether pardoned or unpardoned, believes that he was in a 
state of salvation while in infancy, and that consequently, 
had he died in infancy, he would have been saved. A bene- 
fit he derives from his original title is the impulse given to 
make his salvation sure. In a similar manner he confirms 
his title to infant baptism. While he feels that he had a 
title to salvation in infancy, he feels also, on the same 
ground, that he had as good a title to the outward sign and 
seal of that salvation : hotli of which he noio confirms hy 
faith. Thus, the adult believer baptized in infancy, pre- 
sents himself to the church, and justly claims membership 
and the enjoyment of all the means of grace connected with 
the church. This benefit of infant baptism may be set forth 
in the following manner. 

The infant obtains from his baptism as much benefit as 



BENEFITS OF INFANT BAPTISM. 405 



tlie freeborn child does from the civil constitution. If the 
freeborn child should die, still the conditions of his free- 
dom were such as would have secured him the blessings of 
freedom had he lived. So the initiatory rite of baptism 
sets forth the title of the infant to all the blessings of salva- 
tion, should he live to enjoy them. As the freeborn child 
can lay claim, upon obedience to the civil compact, to all 
the blessings of freedom, so the child baptized in infancy 
can, in adult years, upon faith and obedience, lay claim to 
all the eternal blessings of the church of Christ, sealed and 
ratified unto him in infancy. Repeated baptism, in adult 
age, cannot strengthen this claim, and hence it may be 
dispensed with in every case. 

7. It distinguishes the church from the world. How 
interesting, solemn, and impressive the administration of 
this ordinance in infancy at the altar of the sanctuary, in 
view of the devotional multitude, recognising the grace of 
Grod, the sanctity of religion, the sinfulness of man, and the 
Beparateness and distinctness of the church of Christ ! Never 
was there a more beautiful and impressive ordinance, by 
which, at a glance, the whole redeeming plan of mercy is set 
forth, and the awful and extensive evil of sin presented. So 
impressive is this solemn sacrament sometimes, that unbe- 
lieving parents, while dedicating their children to Grod in 
baptism, are awakened to an effectual and practical sense of 
their alienation, guilt, and danger; and believing parents 
too, are excited to observe an increased diligence in edu- 
cating their children for the duties of life, and qualifying them 
for the glories of heaven. 

8. It imposes a salutary restraint, through all subsequent 
life, upon all who are properly instructed in the nature and 
design of baptism. Your children are now with you in the 
spiritual church of Christ : in a few years, it is most pro- 
bable, they will go out of the spiritual church by trans- 



406 BENEFITS OF INFANT BAPTISM. 



gression. They need, tlierefore, every lielp to incline them 
to the service of God, to acknowledge his right to them, his 
care of them, their obligation to him, and their interest in 
him : all of which are most solemnly impressed on the mind 
by the conditions of baptism. To neglect the baptism of 
your children, therefore, at once cuts them off from the influ- 
ences and incentives found in baptism, releases them in a 
measure from the obligations and restraints involved in the 
sacred rite, and thus so far not only promotes their de- 
parture from the spiritual church, but enhances the diffi- 
culty of their return, and leaves them impelled onward in 
the path of open rebellion and ruin. Circumcision under 
the Jewish law imposed obligation to keep the whole law, as 
Paul writes to the Galatians; ^^I testify to every man that 
is circumcised that he is a debtor to do the whole law. For 
circumcision verily projiteth, if thou keep the law; but if 
thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made un- 
circumcision'^ — and baptism is substituted for circumcision, 
and implies the same obligations. Obedience to baptismal 
obligations secures all the blessings of the atonement, and 
this obedience is imposed in infant baptism, which the 
properly instructed infant recognises and promises to per- 
form in subsequent life. Nor can the violation of baptismal 
obligations any more invalidate the propriety of infant bap- 
tism, than the transgression of the adult Jew can disannul 
the legality of infant circumcision. 

9. The parents too, as already intimated, are stimulated 
more than they would otherwise be to train up their chil- 
dren for heaven. A sense of increased parental obligation 
is constantly recurring, and consequently more zealous 
efforts are made in the behalf of the children. Prayer is 
more earnest — vigilance more constant — solicitude more 
intense — and a sense of responsibility more solemn. The 
child, seeing the parents negligent in this matter, soon be- 



BENEFITS OP INFANT BAPTISM. 407 



comes negligent too: not being early taught his responsi- 
bility, he early feels more at liberty to submit to the 
impulses and propensities of an evil heart, and hence com- 
mits sin with less restraint. This is the infallible result. 
Exceptions, it is true, there are; but the general rule is in 
full force. 

10. The relation between parent and child is hereby 
endeared and sanctified. Nature's voice is now heard as it 
would have expressed itself in Eden — and as it did express 
itself in the Jewish church. What ! the parent stem in the 
church, and the beautiful hvA, so frail, so tender, so deli- 
cate, that the slightest frost may blight it, hanging exposed 
and neglected over Zion's walls, above a wilderness world ! 
The dam in the fold, comfortable, safe, and happy, and the 
feeble lamb out upon the mountains, without a fold and 
desolate ! The parents in the church, and their offspring, 
bone of their bone, and flesh of their flesh, a part of them- 
selves, out of the church ! Not so in civil society. Chil- 
dren are born citizens of the state in which their parents 
live. The connection is not less powerful in grace than in 
nature, nor association less intimate in the church than in 
the world. Under what a heavy sense of grief would the 
Jewish parents have mourned, had they been embraced in 
the church and their children excluded ! It should deeply 
affect every parent in the Christian church, if his children 
are not formally associated with him. 

11. Infant baptism is an institution of Grod, and hence, 
must have important spiritual benefits connected with it. 
And the least benefit attending it is the proper observance 
of it. The faithful performance of duty, in any case, is by 
divine law connected with reward. '^In keeping the judg- 
ments of the Lord, there is great reward.^' God has pledged 
himself to bless the faithfulness of parents in discharging 
their parental obligations. "For I' know him, (Abraham,) 



I 



408 BENEFITS OF INFANT BAPTISM. 



that he will command his children and his household after 
hiia, and they shall keep the way of the Lordj to do justice 
and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham 
that which he hath spoken of him/' Gren. xviii. 19. And so 
in the case of Timothy. " When I call to remembrance the 
unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy 
grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice, and I am per- 
suaded that in thee also." 2 Tim. i. 5. Abraham, Lois, 
and Eunice, by faith entered into covenant with God, the 
former receiving the seal under the Jewish, and the two 
latter receiving baptism under the Christian dispensation, 
and so dedicated formally and sacramentally their children 
to Grod under the dispensations respectively, and the benefit 
in each case is recorded. The language of philosophy and 
wisdom is, ^' Train up a child in the way he should go, and 
when he is old he will not depart from it." Prov. xxii. 6. 

12. God's proprietorship is hereby acknowledged. His 
right to infants can be sacramentally acknowledged in no 
other way. 

13. God seems to exercise a peculiar regard for such as 
are dedicated to him by baptism in infancy. And no 
wonder, since it is the outward seal of the covenant of grace. 
They are most usually converted at an early age; and in 
many respects, they seem to share most largely in the bless- 
ings of the covenant. 

14. Infant baptism is a privilege vouchsafed to parents. 
Why should so many parents decline this privilege ? Is it 
not a privilege to you, parents, to have your children uncon- 
ditionally associated with you in that church of which you 
form a part? To have them formally and solemnly em- 
braced with you in the great covenant of redeeming mercy, 
and so united with you under the guardianship of the church 
of God ? To educate them for heaven in the church rather 
than out of it? To corisecrate them with yourselves at the 



THE DUTY OF DEDICATING, ETC. 409 



altar of God? That you are permitted to imitate the ex- 
ample of Hannah, offering up her precious boy Samuel to 
the service of the sanctuary, and of Joseph consecrating the 
infant Jesus in the temple of God? Are your church 
privileges inferior to those of Jewish parents in former 
days ? Tell me, is it not a privilege to be permitted to call 
God and his cliurch to help you in guiding your children 
safely to heaven ? These are privileges — privileges to pa- 
rents — privileges to children — and how much those baptized 
in infancy owe to the church, to their parents, and to the 
faithfulness of God, it will be impossible properly to esti- 
mate before we reach eternity. It remains for them, by 
God's grace, to continue and confirm their title to the 
"great salvation." 



CHAPTER II. 



THE DEDICATION OF CHILDREN IN BAPTISM A SOLEMN 
DUTY. 

The duty of dedicating children to God in baptism is 
founded upon fundamental principles. 

1. The right of children to baptism is independent of 
parental relation and authority, since it is founded uncon- 
ditionally upon the vicarious death of Christ, and they are 
specifically included in the promise or covenant of salvation ; 
and hence parents are just as much bound formally to re- 
cognise their right to the seal of the covenant, as they are to 
train them up according to the conditions of the covenant, 
and the commands of God given with respect to their moral 
and religious education. Upon the same ground, the church 
has no right to withhold baptism from children. It is a 

35 



410 DEDICATION OF CHILDREN IN BAPTISM 



parental duty to dedicate the child to Grod, and baptism 
gives vhihility to this act of dedication. Every parent is 
just as much bound to dedicate his children to Grod in bap- 
tism as he is to dedicate himself, for he has no better right 
to baptism than his children have. It is a duty then pa- 
rents owe to their children. 

2. It is a duty parents owe to God. It is the vicarious 
death of Christ that gives the child a right to the blessings 
of the covenant of grace, and it is the same death that gives 
Christ a right to the child. It is baptism that formally 
recognises these rights of Christ and the child — that signi- 
fies that these rights exist. Thus it is a duty that parents 
owe to God, as well as their children. 

3. The very duties of parental instruction are implied in 
infant baptism. No one will deny that parental obligation 
properly to train up the children exists, and parents, in the 
baptism of their children, formally and solemnly pledge 
themselves to discharge this obligation. This obligation 
implies a godly life or example. The parents are to walk 
in the same holy path they would have their children pur- 
sue. A godly example is a silent monitor, more powerful 
than the most affecting appeals, or urgent entreaties, or pru- 
dent counsels. The parent is under obligation to submit to 
the authority of God, in keeping all his commandments, not 
only for his own sake, but for the sake of his children. All 
this is implied in the expression with respect to pious Abra- 
ham: '^He will command his children and his household 
after Mm.'* This obligation implies also faithful and 
earnest prayer for the children. Job prayed for his chil- 
dren. Prayer is intercourse with God, and it strengthens 
all the social principles, and enlivcDS in the highest degree 
every parental emotion and impulse, and so qualifies the 
parent the better to train up the children in the fear of God. 
Parental prayer avails with God, and the children are blessed 



A SOLEMN DUTY. 411 



in a ttousand ways by the answers lie gives. Frequent and 
solemn prayer sets the example, and excites the impulse, in 
the case of the children. But parental example and prayer 
are not enough. Faithful religious instruction is required. 
Consider some of the results of pious parental instruction. 
It insensibly blends intellectual and moral instruction in the 
same process. This it does at an age when moral impres- 
sions are easily made upon every mental faculty, and moral 
principles are incorporated in the very texture of mind. 
Now the conscience possesses the tenderest sensibility, the 
will is submissive, the heart is confiding — there is no pre- 
judice to combat — no pride of opinion to encounter — no 
artful sophistry to refute — no deep-laid policy to oppose — 
the evil propensities are yet dormant — evil passions are as 
yet asleep — the cares of the world, its business, its excite- 
ments, its pleasures, its ambition, its examples, make as yet 
no appeal to the attention — and released from the responsi- 
bilities and solicitudes of life, the young and opening mind 
may press its whole energies upon moral subjects. Be- 
sides, childhood is the best time in which to inculcate the 
principles of moral responsibility. The foundation of moral 
character is now laid in the a priori faculties of mind. 
Moral being, moral life, moral history, now begin in their 
primary elements — doctrines, conduct, enterprises, tastes, 
pleasures, associations, originate in the moral character now 
formed. The mind now receives the elements of its subse- 
quent indefinite expansion, as a citizen of time, and a candi- 
date for eternity. How he is to think, to act, to feel, as a 
subject of God^s moral government — what are to be his 
moral sensibilities and tendencies — what are to be the ele- 
ments of his .whole moral being — is now to be determined. 
A more solemn or important duty cannot be conceived of 
than this which is devolved upon parents. The elements 
of future strength are wrapped '•p in the organized elements 



412 DEDICATION OF CHILDREN IN BAPTISM 



contained within tlie limits of tlie unsightly coil of the 
acorn, and in their early evolution a child may snap the 
tender twig; "but in the maturity of their development, the 
oak spreads its strong branches toward the heavens, and 
survives the shock of a thousand storms. The streamlet 
down the slope of the mountain may he diverted in its 
early progress from its original course by a tiny obstructing 
pebble, and so be lost in the depths of some murky, doleful 
cavern; but had it flowed on in the proper direction, it 
would have received the aid of countless streams in its pro- 
gress, and rolled its congregated waters into the distant 
ocean — a noble river, the boundary of empires, and bearing 
upon its broad, deep bosom the navies and the commerce 
of the world. One of the results of pious parental instruc- 
tion is, the mind at an early age is brought under the con- 
victing and converting grace of Grod. Children so instructed 
know more of the precepts, invitations, promises, doctrines, 
warnings, and threatenings of the Bible, and hence have a 
livelier sense of sin and clearer views of pardon than many 
old persons who never enjoyed the privilege. The exalted 
piety and distinguished usefulness of Samuel, Timothy, 
Augustine, Hooker, Wesley, Dwight, Gardener, Doddridge, 
and a page of the noblest names among men, are to be 
ascribed to the early education of pious parents. From the 
same source the state has been furnished with some of its 
most illustrious champions and strongest pillars; the halls 
of learning, legislation, and jurisprudence, have been 
adorned with some of their brightest ornaments ; and the no 
less honorable and respectable pursuits and toils of daily life 
are dignified with industry, morality, and integrity. The 
sanctions of religion alone can give stability to the institu- 
tions of a nation, and establish a national morality, and the 
purest national character. The whole solid framework of 
our government — our extensive facilities of trade and com- 



A SOLEMN DUTY. 413 



merce— skill and success in agriculture — our free and noble 
institutions — our press — our growing population — our liberty 
— our dignity — our prosperity — and our endless prospects — 
are the fruits of the Christian religion. While civil legis- 
lators are enacting penal laws, and devising plans for prisons 
and dungeons and death, pious parents are applying all their 
energies to render these civil arrangements unnecessary — 
and not in vain, for scarcely any piously instructed in child- 
hood have been condemned and disgraced by crime. Parental 
instruction of this nature is founded upon the eternal basis 
of divine truth, and corresponding results will follow. Let 
it not be supposed that this law of heaven was applicable 
only in the Old-Testament times. Grod has the same regard 
for children now, that he had and expressed then — children 
have the same interest in the atonement now, that they had 
then — they have the same need of instruction now, that they 
had then — and parents are under the same obligation now 
to train up their children properly, as they were then. The 
Psalmist says, Grod ^^established a testimony in Jacob, and 
appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, 
that they should make them known to their children, which 
should be born, who should arise and declare them to their 
children; that they might set their hope in God, and not 
forget the works of G-od, but keep his commandments." 
Ps. Ixxviii. 5-7. And so in Deut. vi. 4-7; xi. 18-21. 
And so Paul exhorts parents, that they ''bring up their 
children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.'' Eph. 
vi. 4. And so the apostle bears testimony to pious train- 
ing in the case of Timothy: ''But continue thou in the 
things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, 
knowing of whom thou hast learned them, and that from a 
child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able 
to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith, which is in 
Jesus Christ/' 2 Tim. iii. 14, 15. Now all these duties^ 

35* 



414 DEDICATION OF CHILDREN, ETC. 



namely, of a godly example, faithful, earnest, and constant 
prayer, and pious instruction, are involved essentially in 
parental relations; and parents solemnly and formally pledge 
themselves to discharge them, whenever they dedicate their 
children to Grod in baptism. An illustration is found in the 
case of Hannah and Samuel. She solemnly vowed that she 
would dedicate her child to Grod. Her prayer was heard and 
granted, and the child of prayer and promise formally con- 
secrated to Grod, and duly trained, and none under the Old- 
Testament dispensation was more distinguished than Samuel 
for piety and usefulness 

4. Grod has deeply implanted in parental hearts a 
strong affection for their children, and the tenderest anxiety 
for their welfare, and these pure social sentiments they 
solemnly pledge to their children in the formal service of 
baptism. The neglect of parental obligation is exceedingly 
displeasing to Grod, of which we have an impressive instance 
recorded in the case of Eli: ^^ And the Lord said to Samuel, 
Behold, I will do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears 
of every one that heareth it shall tingle. In that day I will 
perform against Eli all things which I have spoken concern- 
ing his house : when I begin, I will also make an end. For 
I have told him that I will judge his house for ever, for the 
iniquity which he hnoweth; because his sons made them- 
selves vile, and he restrained them not. And therefore I 
have sworn linto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli's 
house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for 
ever." Let parents then remember that a most solemn 
trust is committed to them, involving a most solemn obliga- 
tion, and this obligation is formally and solemnly acknow- 
ledged in the baptism of their children, and is to be dis- 
charged in the performance of the corresponding duties 



CONCLUSION. 415 



CHAPTER III. 

CONCLUSION. 

A FEW remarks shall conclude this treatise. 

1, The ordinance of baptism is to be explained to the 
children by the parents. Parents are under obligation to 
do this. " These words which I command thee this day, 
shall be in thine heart, and thou shall teach them diligently 
to thy children, and talk of them when thou sittest in thy 
house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou 
liest down, and when thou risest up.'' * ^^ The fathers to 
the children shall make known thy truth."® "He esta- 
blished a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, 
which he commanded our fathers that they should make 
them known to their children.''^ "When your children 
ask. What mean you by this service, then you shall say, It 
is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover, who passed over the 
houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote 
the Egyptians," &c.* A neglect of these duties was visited 
with bitter fruits upon the houses of Eli and David. 

2. Much depends upon the faith of the parents and the 
church. " Only the Lord has a delight in their fathers to 
love them, and he chose their seed after them.'^ "The 
mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon 
them that fear him, and his righteousness to children's 
children.^' " The generation of the upright shall be blessed." 



1 Deut. vi. 6, 7. « pg. xxxviii. 19. 

3 Ps. Ixxviii. 5-7. * Ex. xii. 26, 27. 



416 INFANT BAPTISM. 



Consider the faith of Hannah for Samuel — of the nobleman 
for his son at the point of death — of the woman of Canaan 
for her daughter vexed with a devil — and of Abraham for 
his own family. If faith can affect the spiritual interests 
of strangers, what may it confer upon the offspring ! Under 
the influence of a strong and abiding faith, the children are 
to be trained up in the "nurture and admonition of the Lord'' 
— to be often reminded of their dedication to Grod in baptism, 
and consequent solemn responsibilities and important privi- 
leges — and to be encouraged to exercise saving faith, with- 
out which all forms and ceremonies are dead and powerless 

3. The most solemn obligation is imposed upon parents, 
believing or unbelieving, to have their children baptized at 
the earliest convenience. The children of unbelieving, as 
well as believing parents, have an unconditional title to all 
the blessings of the everlasting covenant, and Christ also 
has a right to them. These rights can be formally acknow- 
ledged in no other way than by baptism. Nor can the 
apprehension of parents, that their children will not dis- 
charge their baptismal obligations, release them from attend- 
ing to this duty which they owe to Christ and their children. 

To neglect the baptism of the children, therefore, is in a 
very high degree improper, unwise, unkind, and unjust; and 
without question, under such circumstances, sin accrues to 
the parents, and much disadvantage and injury redound to 
the children in after life, and perhaps thereby to all eternity. 
A fearful import attends the omission or neglect of this duty. 
Safety only is in the proper observance of it. 

4. Finally : this sacred ordinance should be administered 
in the church. The reasons for this are many and weighty. 
It greatly promotes the revival of the universal practice of 
infant baptism. It increases the number of attendants on 
divine service on the Sabbath-day. It suggests all the great 
truths of the gospel — revives a sense of parental obligation 



CONCLUSION. 417 



— ^furnishes strong ground of appeal to the congregation, 
and many impressive motives to evangelical obedience — and 
excites a spirit of prayer for the subject of baptism, which 
could not be obtained in the drawing-room of the rich or 
the cottage of the poor. As TertuUian says, " We can with 
greater profit beg the divine grace upon the baptized person, 
when there is a number present in the puhlic congregation.^^ 
The church, from its solemn associations, is the most suita- 
ble place. It is true, whole households were baptized in 
the days of the apostles, and consequently infants were then 
baptized at home; but in the infancy of the church, and in 
view of the itinerant labors of the apostles, this practice was 
justified — ^there were no churches in the early days of the 
apostles. It is more convenient to baptize in the church 
than at home, since many can be baptized in the church on 
the same occasion. The design of baptism seems to demand 
that it he puhlic, as in baptism the subject is consecrated to 
the service of God. The baptismal service of our church 
contemplates the administration of the ordinance in the 
church. In the direction, the terms, " the minister coming 
to the font;^' "dearly beloved;^' in the prayer, "the sup- 
plications of thy congregation;" preparatory to reading the 
gospel, "then shaU the people stand up 3" all clearly show 
that the Discipline designs that the baptism of children 
should be administered in the church. This view is further 
sustained by the baptismal service of the Church of England, 
of which ours is a modification. If from any urgent cause, 
baptism is to be administered at home, the Church of Eng- 
land has provided a particular office for it, which directs 
that the essential parts of the sacrament be administered 
immediately in private, but defers the other solemnities till 
the child can be brought into the church. The office is 
ordered to be said at the font, in the middle of the morning 
and evening prayer. The priest tells the godfathers and 



418 INFANT BAPTISM. 



godmothers, that they "have brought the child hither to he 
baptized;" which would have been absurd if it had been 
baptized at home. In the prayer, the priest says, "Grrant 
that whosoever is here dedicated to thee by our office and 
ministry;" which would be absurd as before, if the word 
here did not refer to the church. And not until the prac- 
tice of public baptism in the church was occasionally aban- 
doned for private baptism at home, was the term "here" 
omitted in our discipline. Lastly, baptism initiates into, 
and associates with the church ; and consequently, where is 
so suitable a place as the church? And what is more 
rational and consistent than the presence of the church, with 
whom, by baptism, the child is now united, and with whom 
he continues, till by actual transgression he forfeits his 
membership? Let the church restore the privilege, and 
observe the importance, of a general administration of this 
ordinance in the public congregation. 



INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 



OLD TESTAMENT. 



PAGE 

168 

242 

217 

408 

291 

291 



Gen. vi. 13 

xvii. 4, 5.... 

xvii. 7 

xviii. 19.... 
xlvi. 27-31. 

Exod. i. 1 

xii. 22 63 

xiv. 22 91 

xxvi. 27 415 

xxix. 4, 7 176 

Lev. iv. 6 63 

17 63 

viu. 6, 10-12 176 

xiv. 6 54 

7 65 

xvi.14,15 64 

Num. viii. 7 65 

xvi. 27,32 292 

xviii. 11 291 

Dent. V. 2, 3 376 

vi. 6, 7 415 

X. 15 250 

xxi. 1, 9 106 

XXV. 9.... 291 

xxix. 10-12 225 

10-15 384 

11,12 376 



PAGE 

Deut. XXX.6 249 

xxxiii. 24 63 

Josh. iii. 8 95 

15 55,63 

17 55 

viu. 34,35 376 

Ruth iv. 11, 12 292 

1 Sam. xiv. 27 63 

2 Sam. vii. 11, 27, 29 290 

XU.11 291 

2Kingsiii. 11 53 

V. 10 56 

11 57 

Job XX. 28 292 

Ps. xxvi. 6 106 

xxxviii. 19 415 

xl. 8 168 

li. 7 106 

lxviii.23 63 

Ixxii. 6 89 

Ixxvii. 16 91 

Ixxviii. 5-7 413 

Isa. xiii. 16 292 

xliv. 3 89 

ML 15 32, 89 

lvi.6,7 237 

Ixiii. 1, 3 43 

419 



420 



INDEX or SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 



PAGE 

Jer. XXX. 20 235 

Ezek. xxiii. 15 64 

xxxvi. 23 32 

xxxvi. 25, 26 89,93,106 

xxxix. 29 89 

Dan. iv. 23, 25, 33 62 



PAGE 

Hosea vi. 3 89 

Joelii. 28, 29 33, 89 

Amos ix. 11, 12 233 

Zech. xii. 10 89 

Mai. iii. 2, 3 46 



NEW TESTAMENT. 



Matt. ii. 11 288 

iu.5, 6 93 

11 49, 52 

14,15 175 

16 33 

xiv. 30 66 

xvi. 24, 25 204 

xvuL3 280,282 

6 66 

xix. 14 275 

xxi. 43 234 

xxii. 31,32 243 

xxiv. 22 39 

xxvi. 23 43 

xxvii. 24 106 

40 34 

xxviii.2.. 34 

19 19,23,117,259 

Mark i. 8 49 

10 35 

vii.4 53, 56 

X. 38 64 

xii. 9 234 

Luke i. 4, 8 116 

37 39 

iii. 16 49 

21 179 

vii. 44 54 

xi. 38 53 

xii. 50 64 

xvi. 24. 56 



Luke xxiv. 47 117 

49 50,116 

John L 25 46 

32 50 

iii. 5, 7 20, 38, 202 

26 45, 74 

Viii. 56 234 

xiii. 26 56 

Actsi. 5 50,52,117 

25 117 

ii.2, 3 50 

16; 17, 18 50, 89 

33 50,117 

38 18 

38,39 218,269 

iii. 25 274 

iv. 5 23 

vui. 15, 16 50 

31 ■ 35 

38 33 

ix.ll... 128 

x.6...^ ■ 288 



22. 
38. 
44. 
45. 



127 
50 
50 



47 93, 125 

xi. 11-13 288 

15 50 

XV. 1-5 249 

8 60 



INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 



421 



PAGE 

Acts XV. 14-17 234 

xvi. 15-33 23 

xviii. 8 23 

xix. 4 18, 174 

xix. 6 23 

xxii. 16 48 

xxiii. 8 39 

xxvi. 22 234 

Rom. i. 2 234 

ii. 25 229 

iiLl, 2.'. 238 

iv. 229 

11 218 

iv. 13,14 274 

16,17 243 

V. 18 213,282 

vi. 3-11 20, 21, 21, 23, 48 

xi 231 

18 231 

xiii. 1,2 124 

1 Cor. i. 13 23 

vii. 14 285 

X. 1, 2 53, 90, 284 

xi. 20 73 

XV. 29 22,23 

Gal. ii. 3-5 253 

iii. 8j27 228,283 

17 228,284 

19 228 

26-29 18, 20, 166 

• 248, 274, 283 
iv. 28 274 



PAOS 

Gal. V. 2-4 240 

6 105 

Eph.i.9 13 

i. 10 285 

i. 13 51 

ii. 14, 16, 19, 20 229 

iii. 3 13 

6 229 

iv.1-5 21 

Phil. iii. 2, 3 248 

iv.8 113 

22 289 

Col. i. 27 14 

ii. 12 23,48 

ii. 10-12 248 

1 Tim. iii. 4, 5, 12 293 

V. 14 293 

vi.9 66 

2 Tim. i. 5 408 

Titus iii. 1 124 

Heb. vi. 2 66, 202 

ix. 10 47, 56 

13 65,106 

xi. 9-10 243 

13-16 243 

19 122 

xii. 24 106 

1 Peter i. 2 106 

12 51 

iii. 21 23 

1 John V. 8 106 

Rev. xix. 13 43, 56 



36 



GENERAL INDEX 



Acts ii. 38, 39, specific promise, 268. 

Ainsworth, 70 ; on proselyte baptism, 262. 

Anabaptists, founders of modem Baptist church, 349. 

Apo, 86. 

Apostolic constitutions, 69. 

Aristotle, 40 ; definition of " house," 289. 

Assembly of divines at Westminster, 200. 

Augustine, 22. 

Backus, a Baptist historian, on origin of the Baptist Church in England, 
186 ; and in America, 194-196. 

Baptism, various opinions of, 14 ; gradual development of, 16 ; detrt 
tion of, 19 ; expressive of faith in Trinity, 19 ; adoption into 
family of God, 20 j spiritual union with Son, 20 ; regeneration 
by Spirit, 20 ; renunciation of the world, 21 ; spiritual union 
among Christians, 21 ; hope of future resurrection, 22 ; doc- 
trine of original sin, 22 ; free grace, 23 ; emblematical, not 
conditional, 21 j obligation, 23, 163 ; sin of neglect, 23 ,• pro- 
per administrator of, 25 ; form of, 26 ; subjects of, 27; element 
of, 27 ; mode of, 27 ; analogy between it and circumcision, 249, 
252; substituted for circumcision, 244, 268; a seal, 241; figu- 
rative, 129, 163 ; a federal act, 168. 

Baptismal regeneration, origin of, 13, 49. 

Baptists, line of succession of, 197, 198 ; origin of in England and 
America, 187-196. 

Baptizo, 33 ; its evangelical sense, 37 ; classic Greek not standard, 40 ; 
scriptural proof, 45 ; new translation of, 131. 

Bapto, 43. 

Basil, 68. 

Benedict, a Baptist historian, on origin of the Baptist Church in England 

and America, 187, 188 ; his concessions, 197, 347, 348. 

Bible, translation of, 68. 

423 



424 GENERAL INDEX. 



Booth, his concession, 268 ; his unfairness, 139. 
Broaddus, a Baptist, his concession, 192. 
Brown, on infant baptism, 350. 
Bruis, Peter de, 183, 336. 

Caltin, 12, 136; misrepresented by Baptists, 146, 322; corrected by 
Dr. Fuller, a Baptist, 153. 

Campbell, Dr. George, 39, 40. 

Campbellism, 14, 21, 49, 133, 210. 

Carson, a Baptist, 44, 54, 57, 69, 85, 86, 87. 

Cassander, respecting Menno, 185. 

Cathari, 343. 

Christ, baptism of, 95; his baptism notbindinguponus, 171; not John's 
baptism, 174; nor Christian baptism, 174; character of, 175; 
not an example for us, 177, 178, 372. 

Chrysostom, 68, 69. 

Church, under same covenant, in all ages, 227. 

Circumcision, a seal, 236 ; analogy, 257, 371. 

Clark, on mode of Jailer's baptism, (note,) 125. 

Clarke, Dr. A., misrepresented by Baptists, 149; on phrase "kingdom ^f 
God," (note,) 281, 282. 

Close communion, 98, 199, 209. 

Commission, the great, 259. 

Covenants, Abrahamic, 217, 227 ; Jewish or Mosaic, 217, 225; Adamic, 
225; Christian, 227; covenant of grace, seal of, same under 
all dispensations, 236; specifically embraces infant bap- 
tism, 269. 

Coptic version, on Lydia's baptism, 299. 

Cornelius, baptism of, 93 ; mode of his baptism, 127 ; design of record- 
ing his baptism, 125. 

Coulon, 70. 

Cyprian, in favour of infant baptism, 316. 

Cyril, of Jerusalem, 69. 

Doddridge, on infant baptism, 136. 

Donatists, origin of, and practised infant baptism, 344. 

Donnegan, on baptizo, 66, 69. 

Dwight, Dr., 72. 

Ecclesiastical GOVERimENT, 101; history, in favour of infant bap- 
tism, 308. 
Eia or en, 84, 85. 
Ek or ex, 86. 



GENERAL INDEX. 425 



English Scriptures, on mode of baptism, 30. 
Epictetus, on proselyte baptism, 268. 
Eunuch, baptism of, 82, 83, 87. 

Fathers, on baptism in place of circumcision, 252 ; with ancient writers 
in favour of infant baptism: Irenaeus, 309; Justin Martyr, 
309; Tertullian, 308-311, 331; Origen, 313; Ambrose, Au- 
gustine, Chrysostom, Jerome, Optatus, Gregory Nazianzen, 
317 ; Pelagius, 318, 329 ; Celestius, 319. 

Fidus, letter to, 316. 

Gale, Dr., 60, 63 ; misrepresentation of Wall, 145. 

Gases, 70. 

Greek Church, practises trine immersion and sprinkling, 134; practises 
infant baptism, 141. 

Greek prepositions, 76 ; rules of translation of, 77 ; their true mean- 
ing, 84. 

Grove, 66, 69. 

Grotius, on ritual institutions, 104. 

Hall, Robert, on John's ministry, 172; on Christ's baptism, 176; on 

phrase "kingdom of God," 279. 
Hedericus, 66, 69. 

Henry, on circumstance and substance of baptism, 105. 
Hesychius, 70. 
High Church, 14, 15. 
Household baptisms, 295, 296. 

Immersion, not emblematical, 89; not to be excluded, 96; not "across," 
97 ; in certain cases, fatal, 109 ; in case of females, indeli- 
cate, 110; superstitious, 209. 

Infant baptism, origin of opposition to, 183; ground of, 212, 216; va- 
rious views of, 214; confirmatory, 212; as a seal, 245-247; 
continued practice of, 323 ; history of opposition to, 336 ; ob- 
jections considered: "an innovation," 326; "no positive com- 
mand," Ac, 352 ; " repentance and faith necessary," Ac, 352 ; 
" baptism not substituted for circumcision," 361 ; " Christ was 
baptized in adult age," &c., 372 ; " our children are with us 
in the spiritual church," 372 ; "if die in infancy, will be saved," 
373 ; " does not make infant a Christian," 373 ; " without voli- 
tion of infant," 373; "may become dissatisfied with baptism," 
377; "infants of unbelieving parents ought not to be bap- 
tized," 386; "both parents do not sanction infant baptism," 



426 GENERAL INDEX. 



387 J "ought to be admitted to the Lord's supper," 388; "part 
of Popery," 390 ; " serves to corrupt the church," 391 ; "intro- 
duces the whole world into church," 393 ; " all unbaptized infants 
are lost," 393 ; " infants of believing parents have no need of 
baptism," 394,' benefits of, 397-409; should be administered in 
the church, 416. 
Israelites, baptized in Red Sea, 91. 

Jailer, baptism of, 122. 

Jesus, baptism of, 82. 

Jewett, on translation of haptizo, 131; misrepresents Calvin, 146; cor- 
rected by Dr. Fuller, 153. 

John's baptism, 82, 93; did not abolish Jewish rites, 172; not a Chris- 
tian sacrament, 172; preparatory to Christian baptism, 178; form 
diflFerent from that of Christian baptism, 174; mode not immer- 
sion, 159; ascribes commission to Father, 173; multitudes bap- 
tized, 120; his disciples rebaptized — Carson's admission, 178. 

Knoavles, a Baptist, on origin of Baptist Church in America and British 
Empire, 191. 

LiGHTFOOT, on Jewish proselytism, 262; on infant baptism, 265. 
Lord's supper, 103; frequency and manner of observance, 107. 
Luther, on use of water in baptism, 105. 

Maimonides, on proselytism, 260, 261. 

Menno, Mennonites, 185, 338, 341 ; practise pouring, 156. Menno ad- 
mits infant baptism in use from apostles' times, 185, 341. 

Methodist Discipline, 13, 22, 209. 

Miller, Dr. Saml., 71; on ancient practice of baptizing naked, (note,) 113. 

Milner, on antiquity of infant baptism, 350 ; time of origin of anti-paedo- 
baptists, 136. 

Mode of baptism, 28, 30, 33, 49; expresses nothing of moral quality, 74; 
analogy, 88; non-essential, 99, 103. > 



Nestorians, practise affusion, 154. 
Novatians, origin of, baptized infants, 347. 



Oikos — oihia, terms not interchangeable, 287. Oihos, in sense of 
family, 289 : oikia includes more, 289 ; oikos refers specially 
' to children, 290; infants explicitly, 292; in youngest possible 
state, 293. 

Owen, Dr., 71. 



GENERAL INDEX. 427 



Tapaidia — ta hrephe, 278. 

Passor, 66, 69. 

Paul, St., baptism of, 48 ; mode of his baptism, 128. 

Paulicians, 343 ; never opposed infant baptism, 344. 

Paterines, 343. 

Pelagius, 22. 

Pendleton, his unfairness, 137; corrected by Ripley, 138. 

Peschito-Syriac version, 153, 154. 

Petrobrussians, 136, 198. 

Plautus, 169. . 

Plato, 39. 

Prescott, on ancient practice of Mexicans in burning dead, (note,) 167. 

Proselyte baptism, 260, 261, 262. . 

Rebaptism, improper, 308, 379, 395, 405. 

Robinson, Baptist historian, on ancient practice of baptizing naked, (note,) 

112; on Roman practice of burning the dead, (note,) 167. 
Romans, vi. 4, true import of, 168. 
Romish Church, 14, 15, 49. 

Sacraments, nature of, 11. 

Scapula, 69. 

Schleusner, 69. 

Seal, definition of, 245. 

Selden, on 1 Cor. x. 1, 2. 

Silence of Scripture on infant baptism, 300; of the church, 304; of the 

enemies of the church, 305. 
Sprinkling, emblematical, 89, 90, 105. 
Stephanus, 69. 
Stuart, Prof., 62, 68; on baptizing naked, 113; on infant baptism, 136 j 

misrepresented, and misrepresentation corrected, 137, 138. 
Suidas, 70. 
Symbols, ancient, in favor of infant baptism, 322. 

Tertullian, witness to /ac< of infant baptism, 308, 310; admitted its 

validity, 331; singular opinion, 311. 
Three thousand, baptism of, 114. 
Timothy, his circumcision and baptism, 253, 256. 
Titus, circumcision denied him, 253, 256. 

Unfairness of Baptists, 134. 

Vossirs, 112. 



428 GENERAL INDEX. 



Versions of Bible, defended against unfairness of Baptists — Luther's, 
150; Peschito-Syriac, 153; Dutch, Danish, and Swedish, 155. 

Wall, on ancient practice of baptizing naked, (note,) 112. 

Waldenses and Albigenses, 197, 340, practised infant baptism, 341. 

"Water, design of in Baptism, 27. 

Watson, Richard, 72, 85, 244. 

Wayland, Dr., a Baptist, his concession, 198. 

Wesley, on mode of John's baptism, 122; misrepresented by Baptists, 146; 

on close communion, (note,) 149. 
Whewell, on moral obligation, 376. 
Willet, Dr. Andrew, on infant baptism as a seal, 247. 
Williams, Roger, founder of Baptist church in America, 187; repudiated 

his baptism, 189, 190. 
Words, new import of, 41. 



THE END. 



8TXBE0ITFZD BT L. JOHNSON AND 00. 
fHILADELFHIA. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 665 062 4 



